Nightbringer's Chosen wrote: Can anyone kindly check the wording on Vassal Dynasties and the Dynasty-specific things?
If I'm making a custom Dynasty and choose it to be a Vassal of Nephrekh, is there anything I miss out on? Stratagems or relics or anything? Or does it end up being "Nephrekh but purple"?
Tabletop Titans are doing a live review later
But from what they said during the live game only marines get the full strategums & relics if you choose a build your own chapter.
Ice_can wrote: Because GW can't do consistent writing, they often use from any part of the model as if its copy and pasted, without thinking if it is what they mean.
Remember when in 5th edition we had competent writer that actually played the game? With the most balanced books in 40k history, points and options tailored to individual units (on datasheets, too, instead of stupid flipping 575754 times to armory/points page insanity), very generous counts as (no 'model/paint scheme X can only mean X'), LOS rules written with not penalizing modelling in mind (that was edition that ignored banners, guns, wings, hands, etc), rules written to be flavorful and to cover holes in army (outright telling you to convert chapter master or chief apothecary instead of 'buy this specific no-options captain' we have now)?
Alas, loud children didn't like two words of fluff so we had to suffer for three editions with Kelly, Cruddace and co instead, TYVM whiners
I was actually reminded of 5th edition book while reading this one, BTW - in 5th edition, Chapter Master was introduced as peer of the Imperium, ruler of particular subsector, and brilliant strategist. Someone who actually did important things. Waving a sword wasn't his job, hell, 5th edition created Honour Guard, unit made out of guys whose only job was keeping enemies busy so Chapter Master can command in peace. Now, in 9th edition, HG is gone and Chapter Master's introduction is that of a Rambo who charges enemies first so he can rack biggest Fortnite killcounts, killstreaks, and killsteals, very little mention of commanding anything. Gee, I wonder which one is more fluffy/sensible
Oh yeah, I remember how balanced Grey Knights and Longfang missile spam were. You absolutely couldn't erase an entire table at one time, no sir. And who could forget all the lovely fluff about using Sisters of Battle as Armor Paint. Nothing arse slowed there at all!
edit: Removed, please avoid making such hyperbolic political comparisons
tneva82 wrote: And you seem "if everything isn't perfect everything sucks" type who hasn't heard of thing called "scale". 70% perfect is way better than 35% perfect.
Yeah, 5th edition certainly had its issues, but I'd argue the core rules were still vastly superior to any that followed (including those of 8th and 9th).
I think a revised 5th edition, especially if given the rules and point cost support 8th was, would have been vastly, vastly better than the monstrosities that were 6th and 7th edition.
tneva82 wrote: And you seem "if everything isn't perfect everything sucks" type who hasn't heard of thing called "scale". 70% perfect is way better than 35% perfect.
Yeah, 5th edition certainly had its issues, but I'd argue the core rules were still vastly superior to any that followed (including those of 8th and 9th).
I think a revised 5th edition, especially if given the rules and point cost support 8th was, would have been vastly, vastly better than the monstrosities that were 6th and 7th edition.
the core rules certainly were more indepth... the missions i am sceptical...
The armies though, leafblower and grey knights... i am unsure if i'd like that state again... but then again we also had SM 2.0 IH and consorts...
Mr Morden wrote: They have put a surprising amount of work into the Marine Supplement armies esp the Wolves, Angels and DW
This is absolute bs. Deathwatch lost the overwhelming majority of their special rules as a result of this "surprisingly well worked" update.
We have zero stratagems, 1 WLT, no relics, SIA only functions on two datasheets (that's right, if you're Primaris, no SIA for you!), and to top it all off, the mixed squad rules that actually made the faction anything other than "black marines" are completely gone.
Mr Morden wrote: They have put a surprising amount of work into the Marine Supplement armies esp the Wolves, Angels and DW
This is absolute bs. Deathwatch lost the overwhelming majority of their special rules as a result of this "surprisingly well worked" update.
We have zero stratagems, 1 WLT, no relics, SIA only functions on two datasheets (that's right, if you're Primaris, no SIA for you!), and to top it all off, the mixed squad rules that actually made the faction anything other than "black marines" are completely gone.
I did not say it was good - just that they had put quite a bit of work in - I was expecting a straight single page at most for each Supplement Chapter.
You can have mixed squads but it looks like inferior ones to normal versions of their unit?
Spoiler:
MIXED UNITWhen faced with an array of missions to complete and varying enemies to lay low, the Deathwatch are highly adept at forming effective kill teams that mesh starkly diverse armour and equipment.If this unit contains models with different Toughness characteristics, each time an attack is made against this unit, use the Toughness characteristic of the majority of the models in this unit when determining what roll is required for that attack to successfully wound. If two or more Toughness characteristics are tied for majority, the controlling player selects one of the tied values to be the majority value.For the purposes of the Bolter Discipline ability (see Codex: Space Marines) and for determining which models can embark within a Transport model, the following rules apply:• Deathwatch Terminator models have the Terminator keyword.• Veteran Biker models do not have the Infantry keyword and instead have the Biker keyword.• Vanguard Veteran models with jump packs have the Jump Pack keyword.• Inceptor models have the Jump Pack keyword. • Outrider models do not have the Infantry keyword and instead have the Biker keyword.Vanguard Veterans with jump packs and Inceptors can move across terrain as if they have the Fly keyword.Note that for the purposes of interacting with terrain features, all models in this unit are treated as Infantry, even if this unit contains any Biker models that might behave differently or have specific restrictions whilst interacting with a terrain feature.
I think for all the marine chapters I would wait until the codex supplement comes out. Look at the difference between Indomitus and Codex Necrons. I am sure these are not the final rules for any of them.
That may be the biggest hint of all that Deathwatch will be the first supplement off the press. Why bother doing an in-depth FAQ update for a faction you know will have its new book in, say, 3 or 4 weeks...?
I'm looking forward to the New Necrons but man it's hard not to be bummed about that Monolith. I just saw that they also changed Dimensional Corridor so that you have to be more than 9" away from enemies when you come out.
That was like the one fun thing to do with Monoliths - deep strike them down - hope and pray they survive for one turn and then teleport a unit from across the table into your opponent's face. And it's at the start of the turn so if the enemy moves around you or charges you can't move out of range first and teleport your guys in.
Oy. What a dud.
*Edit* BUT if they're in strategic reserves they CAN come out of a monolith just over 1" away from enemies for 1 cp... because GW internal logic.
Mr Morden wrote: They have put a surprising amount of work into the Marine Supplement armies esp the Wolves, Angels and DW
This is absolute bs. Deathwatch lost the overwhelming majority of their special rules as a result of this "surprisingly well worked" update.
We have zero stratagems, 1 WLT, no relics, SIA only functions on two datasheets (that's right, if you're Primaris, no SIA for you!), and to top it all off, the mixed squad rules that actually made the faction anything other than "black marines" are completely gone.
Welcome to the club.. However I am sorry your marines are less mariney than other marines..
WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Looks like Chosen are still only 1 Wound and CSM Terminators only get 2 vs Loyalist 3
Yep they said that would be the case - not sure why and don;t agree with it but they did flag that up when they annouced the big faq update to weapons.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Looks like Chosen are still only 1 Wound and CSM Terminators only get 2 vs Loyalist 3
Yep they said that would be the case - not sure why and don;t agree with it but they did flag that up when they annouced the big faq update to weapons.
So far my biggest objection is that we now have weapons scaled to two totally different power levels from 8th edition and the new 9th edition while apparently the MFM2020 points are for the 9th edition stats.
That GW thinks this is acceptable explains why balance is so rediculously out of touch.
Cryptek of Awesome wrote: I'm looking forward to the New Necrons but man it's hard not to be bummed about that Monolith. I just saw that they also changed Dimensional Corridor so that you have to be more than 9" away from enemies when you come out.
That was like the one fun thing to do with Monoliths - deep strike them down - hope and pray they survive for one turn and then teleport a unit from across the table into your opponent's face. And it's at the start of the turn so if the enemy moves around you or charges you can't move out of range first and teleport your guys in.
Oy. What a dud.
*Edit* BUT if they're in strategic reserves they CAN come out of a monolith just over 1" away from enemies for 1 cp... because GW internal logic.
Turn the monolith so the corridor is 3, 6, or 9 o'clock and you'll add a up to 4" while keeping the monolith closer.
Domandi wrote: So there was no update for orks other than the prophecy updates. Is this a hint that the original codex is coming soon?
Nope. Just that don't have any same-name weapons (like Tyranids)
Flamers and powerswords pop up in some Xenos lists, and GSC have a whole pile of stuff.
Mind you, since Orks and Dark Eldar have had glimpses of a model shown off (like Death Guard), I'd put them on the short list for the 'Early 2021' Xenos codex that's been officially mentioned.
It isn't a certainty, since there was also a Sister (and we've had no word in their direction), but I'd put pretty good odds on Orks.
Come on guys. You're all forgetting about the large diverse group of community-known playtesters that said the game is good. It's all good, just relax.
JWBS wrote: Come on guys. You're all forgetting about the large diverse group of community-known playtesters that said the game is good. It's all good, just relax.
If we just wait a bit longer, we'll all see how good it is!
Does anyone know if in the new 9th book you can choose the custom traits that allows you to choose a first founding chapter’s traits and also allow you to choose a diffrent supplement to use.
I.e. Imperial Fists chapter traits using Iron Fists supplement as a custom chapter.
broxus wrote: WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.
Hot takes from the new rules:
Dark Angels are the premier Marine faction right now. Very good.
They FINALLY fixed Commander Dante to make him more than just a beatstick.
Death Company Intercessors are going to be nuts, if expensive.
Deathwatch toned down the Special Issue Ammunition IMMENSELY.
GW REALLY does not like Imperial Fists.
broxus wrote: Did inceptors get an extra shot per gun for their bolters??
Oh! I didn’t think to look at them in the new book! Their guns had always been like short ranged heavy bolters, but now heavy bolters got buffed. Any changes to the Inceptor guns?
broxus wrote: WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.
Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!
So, lets see, it doesn't work for Heavy Bolters...which are +1 damage ALL the time now..., and Grav Cannons, which you probably shouldn't really be firing at vehicles anyway. Is there anything else you'd be firing at vehicles that this really matters for? I'm not familiar with some of your Heavy vehicle weapons.
And that slight restriction seems a fair trade for now, if I'm not mistaken, having a Strat which turns on the Devastator Doctrine for a unit for a turn.
broxus wrote: WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.
Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!
So, lets see, it doesn't work for Heavy Bolters...which are +1 damage ALL the time now..., and Grav Cannons, which you probably shouldn't really be firing at vehicles anyway. Is there anything else you'd be firing at vehicles that this really matters for? I'm not familiar with some of your Heavy vehicle weapons.
And that slight restriction seems a fair trade for now, if I'm not mistaken, having a Strat which turns on the Devastator Doctrine for a unit for a turn.
Point is the ability is awful now. Instead of gimping them again they should have just given IF a new one or made it not work on Heavy Bolters or STR 5 weapons. This new rule may at most translate into 2-3 extra wounds a game since it only works the first turn. Overall, pretty silly and a completely pointless nerf. What made IF original from the beginning was they didn’t use high STR and high damage weapons. They used volume of fire and the legacy of dorn rule to reach the same effect. Heavy bolter, onslaught gattling guns, Assault cannons, and similar high volume fire weapons replaced those big AT guns. Now they gimped all that.
broxus wrote: WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.
Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!
So, lets see, it doesn't work for Heavy Bolters...which are +1 damage ALL the time now..., and Grav Cannons, which you probably shouldn't really be firing at vehicles anyway. Is there anything else you'd be firing at vehicles that this really matters for? I'm not familiar with some of your Heavy vehicle weapons.
And that slight restriction seems a fair trade for now, if I'm not mistaken, having a Strat which turns on the Devastator Doctrine for a unit for a turn.
Heavy Onslaught Gatling and Assault Cannons are S6 and very good candidates for tank hunting with +1 D. Not anymore.
What unit would you spend 2 CP to have a further turn of Dev Doctrine, actually? Almost 100% of buffed heavy weapons are single shot, multi damage. +1D on them is almost inconsequential.
The waste-of-a-FA-slot three-man Suppressors? The less-efficient, static, bland Firestrike Servo-turrets?
broxus wrote: WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.
Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!
So, lets see, it doesn't work for Heavy Bolters...which are +1 damage ALL the time now..., and Grav Cannons, which you probably shouldn't really be firing at vehicles anyway. Is there anything else you'd be firing at vehicles that this really matters for? I'm not familiar with some of your Heavy vehicle weapons.
And that slight restriction seems a fair trade for now, if I'm not mistaken, having a Strat which turns on the Devastator Doctrine for a unit for a turn.
Point is the ability is awful now. Instead of gimping them again they should have just given IF a new one or made it not work on Heavy Bolters or STR 5 weapons. This new rule may at most translate into 2-3 extra wounds a game since it only works the first turn. Overall, pretty silly and a completely pointless nerf. What made IF original from the beginning was they didn’t use high STR and high damage weapons. They used volume of fire and the legacy of dorn rule to reach the same effect. Heavy bolter, onslaught gattling guns, Assault cannons, and similar high volume fire weapons replaced those big AT guns. Now they gimped all that.
Point is they are still heads and shoulders above majority of codexes by virtue of being space marines for the nex x months/years...
broxus wrote: WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.
Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!
So, lets see, it doesn't work for Heavy Bolters...which are +1 damage ALL the time now..., and Grav Cannons, which you probably shouldn't really be firing at vehicles anyway. Is there anything else you'd be firing at vehicles that this really matters for? I'm not familiar with some of your Heavy vehicle weapons.
And that slight restriction seems a fair trade for now, if I'm not mistaken, having a Strat which turns on the Devastator Doctrine for a unit for a turn.
Point is the ability is awful now. Instead of gimping them again they should have just given IF a new one or made it not work on Heavy Bolters or STR 5 weapons. This new rule may at most translate into 2-3 extra wounds a game since it only works the first turn. Overall, pretty silly and a completely pointless nerf. What made IF original from the beginning was they didn’t use high STR and high damage weapons. They used volume of fire and the legacy of dorn rule to reach the same effect. Heavy bolter, onslaught gattling guns, Assault cannons, and similar high volume fire weapons replaced those big AT guns. Now they gimped all that.
Well, I'm certainly glad i'm not going to simply lose against an IF player with a centurion unit. If a single heavy bolter was able to do 9 damage (not including the extra bolt procs) each time it shoots that would be a little off gameplay wise. A mate of mine was already kicking my arse when I played mech orks.
Since when have been Imperial Fists one or the worst space marine subfaction when they where TOP 3 with iron hands and ravenguard for more than half a year?
It's fair to say that Imperial Fists needed a nerf.
It's also fair to say that the way it's been handled, making their replacement ability all but useless save in a handful of edge cases, means they no longer feel like Fists. Instead they're now vanilla Marines that could have been a better Chapter, if only it weren't for all that pesky yellow (especially compared to Salamanders, who still get special flamers and melta).
I'd have much preferred a toned-down version of Bolter Drill. That way you're still rewarded for building a reasonably fluffy list.
That said - I'm very much aware this is the 40k version of a "first world problem". I'm not actually complaining here - just adding my perspective.
I think people are forgetting the IF have taken like 4 rounds of nerfs. Centurions already were useless since they could only be in the devastator doctrine for one turn, had a massive points increase, no longer get bolter discipline, are not core, no longer were able to use PA strategem, and can no longer be in specialist detachments. So you are saying need ANOTHER nerf? They cost 90pts each for a T5 4 wound model!
I think people are forget all the previous IF nerfs. If they made the cut line at STR 6 it still would have been a nerf, but at least somewhat useful For one turn. As of now it is a completely useless skill.
I think the attitude of "That's too bad, but you're still playing Marines so suck it!" is unhealthy.
A rule nerf is a rule nerf no matter what army it's for, and further diluting the identity of the Imp Fists by not reworking their Chapter traits just reeks of laziness from GW.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the attitude of "That's too bad, but you're still playing Marines so suck it!" is unhealthy.
A rule nerf is a rule nerf no matter what army it's for, and further diluting the identity of the Imp Fists by not reworking their Chapter traits just reeks of laziness from GW.
Rules nerfs are quite often good and necessary.
It isn't a matter of 'suck it' as much as an awareness that they're still really good and still distinctive among the list of chapters.
And since the weapons in question are strictly better all the time rather than just in Dev Doctrine (where they still get bonus AP)...
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the attitude of "That's too bad, but you're still playing Marines so suck it!" is unhealthy.
A rule nerf is a rule nerf no matter what army it's for, and further diluting the identity of the Imp Fists by not reworking their Chapter traits just reeks of laziness from GW.
To put it another way. If Bezos complained that he dropped a hundred dollars, most people would either go. So? Or actively laugh at him.
It's hard not to argue that marines have a bit too much going for them at the moment. Nerfs, be they minor or major brings them in line with the other codexes and is healthy for the state of the game. If only because stagnation is bad for 40K, be it casual or competitive.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the attitude of "That's too bad, but you're still playing Marines so suck it!" is unhealthy.
A rule nerf is a rule nerf no matter what army it's for, and further diluting the identity of the Imp Fists by not reworking their Chapter traits just reeks of laziness from GW.
I disagree 100%. When one army is so far above and beyond when it comes to rules, I see nothing wrong with nerfing something because the only thing you can compare IF to is other space marine armies. They are still head and shoulders above nearly every other army in the game.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the attitude of "That's too bad, but you're still playing Marines so suck it!" is unhealthy.
A rule nerf is a rule nerf no matter what army it's for, and further diluting the identity of the Imp Fists by not reworking their Chapter traits just reeks of laziness from GW.
To put it another way. If Bezos complained that he dropped a hundred dollars, most people would either go. So? Or actively laugh at him.
It's hard not to argue that marines have a bit too much going for them at the moment. Nerfs, be they minor or major brings them in line with the other codexes and is healthy for the state of the game. If only because stagnation is bad for 40K, be it casual or competitive.
Point is the ability is awful now. Instead of gimping them again they should have just given IF a new one or made it not work on Heavy Bolters or STR 5 weapons. This new rule may at most translate into 2-3 extra wounds a game since it only works the first turn. Overall, pretty silly and a completely pointless nerf. What made IF original from the beginning was they didn’t use high STR and high damage weapons. They used volume of fire and the legacy of dorn rule to reach the same effect. Heavy bolter, onslaught gattling guns, Assault cannons, and similar high volume fire weapons replaced those big AT guns. Now they gimped all that.
That IF, the siege specialist chapter had a rule that discouraged them from taking dedicated bunker-busting weapons such as missiles and lacannons was utterly absurd, so in that sense this change makes perfect sense. Granted, it is very weak now, and it would have been nice had they buffed it along with restricting which weapons it affects.
Well I started IF because they were the weakest SM chapter months ago. They keep kicking that chapter at the bottom and ignore the ones which create problems. I’m just hoping they nerf everyone else to include chaos and Xenos books.
For those saying giving STR 6 guns the +1D (when it was every damage before) are crazy. SMs as a whole were nerfed hard by this codex. IF a just seem to have gotten the worst of it.
Point is the ability is awful now. Instead of gimping them again they should have just given IF a new one or made it not work on Heavy Bolters or STR 5 weapons. This new rule may at most translate into 2-3 extra wounds a game since it only works the first turn. Overall, pretty silly and a completely pointless nerf. What made IF original from the beginning was they didn’t use high STR and high damage weapons. They used volume of fire and the legacy of dorn rule to reach the same effect. Heavy bolter, onslaught gattling guns, Assault cannons, and similar high volume fire weapons replaced those big AT guns. Now they gimped all that.
That IF, the siege specialist chapter had a rule that discouraged them from taking dedicated bunker-busting weapons such as missiles and lacannons was utterly absurd, so in that sense this change makes perfect sense. Granted, it is very weak now, and it would have been nice had they buffed it along with restricting which weapons it affects.
give them a shoot twice ability with lascanons, multi-melta's and missile launches on all core units in the devestator doctine? that'd be nutso powerful and enchourage use of devestators for an early alpha
BrianDavion wrote: give them a shoot twice ability with lascanons, multi-melta's and missile launches on all core units in the devestator doctine? that'd be nutso powerful and enchourage use of devestators for an early alpha
But then they'd just have to change it again once Devs are moved to Legends after the next Marine book.
Besides, Primaris don't make great use of Lascannons and Missile Launchers. They've got their own fancier (and more trademarkable) versions ("Las-Talon").
BrianDavion wrote: give them a shoot twice ability with lascanons, multi-melta's and missile launches on all core units in the devestator doctine? that'd be nutso powerful and enchourage use of devestators for an early alpha
But then they'd just have to change it again once Devs are moved to Legends after the next Marine book.
Besides, Primaris don't make great use of Lascannons and Missile Launchers. They've got their own fancier (and more trademarkable) versions ("Las-Talon").
Las-Talons predate Primaris, but otherwise you are right.
broxus wrote: Well I started IF because they were the weakest SM chapter months ago. They keep kicking that chapter at the bottom and ignore the ones which create problems. I’m just hoping they nerf everyone else to include chaos and Xenos books.
For those saying giving STR 6 guns the +1D (when it was every damage before) are crazy. SMs as a whole were nerfed hard by this codex. IF a just seem to have gotten the worst of it.
Tiberius501 wrote: Ummm, DA are utterly bonkers now? They just seem like the best choice.
If you play Deathwing, sure. Inner Circle is bonkers and needs to be nerfed when the actual supplement releases. Ravenwing get a buff because Outriders are good but are otherwise are where they were before this, maybe a little lower with fewer buffs going around to Speeders. Greenwing likes Heavy Intercessors and Eradicators buff them because Eradicators are broken good and improve ANY army they're in, but otherwise, again, more or less in the same place.
Dark Angels as a whole are hardly the best choice since most of the army receives the best buffs the first round in Devastator Doctrine. It's really only Deathwing that are crazy good(for once).
Tiberius501 wrote: Ummm, DA are utterly bonkers now? They just seem like the best choice.
deathwing terminators are stupid good. if you want to run a terminator army deathwing is MASSIVLY the way to go.
Ah I heard all the special dudes got the Transhuman rule baked in, but is it just their termies?
Any Infantry with inner Circle rule....so Azrael, Ezekiel, Interrogator chaplains, plus all terminators in the index.
Ah not as bad as I thought then, I should definitely fact check before I post on the internet haha. Still seems very strong for those units, especially with the +1 to hit for standing still now.
Tiberius501 wrote: Ummm, DA are utterly bonkers now? They just seem like the best choice.
If you play Deathwing, sure. Inner Circle is bonkers and needs to be nerfed when the actual supplement releases. Ravenwing get a buff because Outriders are good but are otherwise are where they were before this, maybe a little lower with fewer buffs going around to Speeders. Greenwing likes Heavy Intercessors and Eradicators buff them because Eradicators are broken good and improve ANY army they're in, but otherwise, again, more or less in the same place.
Dark Angels as a whole are hardly the best choice since most of the army receives the best buffs the first round in Devastator Doctrine. It's really only Deathwing that are crazy good(for once).
Eh. Even if you value the super doctrines, there are solutions to that. Their Codex SM warlord trait is to roll back doctrines for a nearby unit one step, so someone can be using devastator doctrine until turn 3. There's also a strat to turn them all on for a unit.
BrianDavion wrote: give them a shoot twice ability with lascanons, multi-melta's and missile launches on all core units in the devestator doctine? that'd be nutso powerful and enchourage use of devestators for an early alpha
But then they'd just have to change it again once Devs are moved to Legends after the next Marine book.
Besides, Primaris don't make great use of Lascannons and Missile Launchers. They've got their own fancier (and more trademarkable) versions ("Las-Talon").
That "after next marine book they go to legends!" claim is getting bit old. This is already 3rd time it's been claimed. GW isnt' in a hurry.
From what I’ve read I think Roboute is the only one with the Chapter Master aura rule who still gives it to more than one unit at a time. His lieutenant aura part of that rule is still only one core unit though.
Plus Grimnar’s axe is a lot better from what I remember as are his wolves attacks
broxus wrote: WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.
Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!
So, lets see, it doesn't work for Heavy Bolters...which are +1 damage ALL the time now..., and Grav Cannons, which you probably shouldn't really be firing at vehicles anyway. Is there anything else you'd be firing at vehicles that this really matters for? I'm not familiar with some of your Heavy vehicle weapons.
And that slight restriction seems a fair trade for now, if I'm not mistaken, having a Strat which turns on the Devastator Doctrine for a unit for a turn.
Point is the ability is awful now. Instead of gimping them again they should have just given IF a new one or made it not work on Heavy Bolters or STR 5 weapons. This new rule may at most translate into 2-3 extra wounds a game since it only works the first turn. Overall, pretty silly and a completely pointless nerf. What made IF original from the beginning was they didn’t use high STR and high damage weapons. They used volume of fire and the legacy of dorn rule to reach the same effect. Heavy bolter, onslaught gattling guns, Assault cannons, and similar high volume fire weapons replaced those big AT guns. Now they gimped all that.
Point is they are still heads and shoulders above majority of codexes by virtue of being space marines for the nex x months/years...
That's not the point. This is a problem of internal, not external balance. They got much worse than the rest of alternatives. Playing them seems like shooting yourself in the foot now.
broxus wrote: WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.
Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!
So, lets see, it doesn't work for Heavy Bolters...which are +1 damage ALL the time now..., and Grav Cannons, which you probably shouldn't really be firing at vehicles anyway. Is there anything else you'd be firing at vehicles that this really matters for? I'm not familiar with some of your Heavy vehicle weapons.
And that slight restriction seems a fair trade for now, if I'm not mistaken, having a Strat which turns on the Devastator Doctrine for a unit for a turn.
Point is the ability is awful now. Instead of gimping them again they should have just given IF a new one or made it not work on Heavy Bolters or STR 5 weapons. This new rule may at most translate into 2-3 extra wounds a game since it only works the first turn. Overall, pretty silly and a completely pointless nerf. What made IF original from the beginning was they didn’t use high STR and high damage weapons. They used volume of fire and the legacy of dorn rule to reach the same effect. Heavy bolter, onslaught gattling guns, Assault cannons, and similar high volume fire weapons replaced those big AT guns. Now they gimped all that.
Well, I'm certainly glad i'm not going to simply lose against an IF player with a centurion unit. If a single heavy bolter was able to do 9 damage (not including the extra bolt procs) each time it shoots that would be a little off gameplay wise. A mate of mine was already kicking my arse when I played mech orks.
You know each heavy bolter shot has a very small chance of wounding band going through the save of a tank right? It's not "auto 9 damage lol". It's 4/6x2/6x4x6x9. Like 1.4 wounds. Whoa.
Galas wrote:Since when have been Imperial Fists one or the worst space marine subfaction when they where TOP 3 with iron hands and ravenguard for more than half a year?
Since they got three consecutive rounds of nerfs.Thats the past, it doesn't count Late 8th and 9th edition they have managed two top 3 in tournaments, one in the weird Australian meta.
Super Ready wrote:It's fair to say that Imperial Fists needed a nerf.
It's also fair to say that the way it's been handled, making their replacement ability all but useless save in a handful of edge cases, means they no longer feel like Fists. Instead they're now vanilla Marines that could have been a better Chapter, if only it weren't for all that pesky yellow (especially compared to Salamanders, who still get special flamers and melta).
I'd have much preferred a toned-down version of Bolter Drill. That way you're still rewarded for building a reasonably fluffy list.
That said - I'm very much aware this is the 40k version of a "first world problem". I'm not actually complaining here - just adding my perspective.
But they didn't need it. Salamanders needed it. White Scars needed it. Iron Hands may have needed it. IF were rock bottom of SM.
Voss wrote:I think people realize they're still plenty strong, despite one rule or another being reigned in just a bit.
It would have honestly been crazy still at S6. Quite a few of those guns got more shots and are spammable in the army.
Voss wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the attitude of "That's too bad, but you're still playing Marines so suck it!" is unhealthy.
A rule nerf is a rule nerf no matter what army it's for, and further diluting the identity of the Imp Fists by not reworking their Chapter traits just reeks of laziness from GW.
Rules nerfs are quite often good and necessary.
It isn't a matter of 'suck it' as much as an awareness that they're still really good and still distinctive among the list of chapters.
And since the weapons in question are strictly better all the time rather than just in Dev Doctrine (where they still get bonus AP)...
They are still not really good and not distinctive at all. Super Doctrine, Stratagems, Psychic powers and Warlord traits define an army. Most of those for IF are useless "do something to a building noone plays", extremely situational of simply weak. It's not just the bad Super Doctrine. It's that the rest of the kit was really lackluster to begin with.
nintura wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the attitude of "That's too bad, but you're still playing Marines so suck it!" is unhealthy.
A rule nerf is a rule nerf no matter what army it's for, and further diluting the identity of the Imp Fists by not reworking their Chapter traits just reeks of laziness from GW.
I disagree 100%. When one army is so far above and beyond when it comes to rules, I see nothing wrong with nerfing something because the only thing you can compare IF to is other space marine armies. They are still head and shoulders above nearly every other army in the game.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the attitude of "That's too bad, but you're still playing Marines so suck it!" is unhealthy.
A rule nerf is a rule nerf no matter what army it's for, and further diluting the identity of the Imp Fists by not reworking their Chapter traits just reeks of laziness from GW.
To put it another way. If Bezos complained that he dropped a hundred dollars, most people would either go. So? Or actively laugh at him.
It's hard not to argue that marines have a bit too much going for them at the moment. Nerfs, be they minor or major brings them in line with the other codexes and is healthy for the state of the game. If only because stagnation is bad for 40K, be it casual or competitive.
Damn, you said it better than I could.
So far beyond what? They are not more powerful that the rest of the Marines. They were actually weaker. Do you play competitively? Do you read tournament reports?
Point is the ability is awful now. Instead of gimping them again they should have just given IF a new one or made it not work on Heavy Bolters or STR 5 weapons. This new rule may at most translate into 2-3 extra wounds a game since it only works the first turn. Overall, pretty silly and a completely pointless nerf. What made IF original from the beginning was they didn’t use high STR and high damage weapons. They used volume of fire and the legacy of dorn rule to reach the same effect. Heavy bolter, onslaught gattling guns, Assault cannons, and similar high volume fire weapons replaced those big AT guns. Now they gimped all that.
That IF, the siege specialist chapter had a rule that discouraged them from taking dedicated bunker-busting weapons such as missiles and lacannons was utterly absurd, so in that sense this change makes perfect sense. Granted, it is very weak now, and it would have been nice had they buffed it along with restricting which weapons it affects.
Fluff is never a good guide to balance rules. Balance is. Making something bad because it's fluffy is bad game design.
That's not the point. This is a problem of internal, not external balance. They got much worse than the rest of alternatives. Playing them seems like shooting yourself in the foot now.
At least you can solve that by making list as another chapter instead. Yellow white scars or salamanders
Silly but that's what you get with chapter specific rules.
BrianDavion wrote: give them a shoot twice ability with lascanons, multi-melta's and missile launches on all core units in the devestator doctine? that'd be nutso powerful and enchourage use of devestators for an early alpha
But then they'd just have to change it again once Devs are moved to Legends after the next Marine book.
Besides, Primaris don't make great use of Lascannons and Missile Launchers. They've got their own fancier (and more trademarkable) versions ("Las-Talon").
That "after next marine book they go to legends!" claim is getting bit old. This is already 3rd time it's been claimed. GW isnt' in a hurry.
At this point I've become convinced that every time someone predicts that firstborn will be legends'ed in the next codex GW gives firstborn another buff
broxus wrote: WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.
Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!
So, lets see, it doesn't work for Heavy Bolters...which are +1 damage ALL the time now..., and Grav Cannons, which you probably shouldn't really be firing at vehicles anyway. Is there anything else you'd be firing at vehicles that this really matters for? I'm not familiar with some of your Heavy vehicle weapons.
And that slight restriction seems a fair trade for now, if I'm not mistaken, having a Strat which turns on the Devastator Doctrine for a unit for a turn.
Heavy Onslaught Gatling and Assault Cannons are S6 and very good candidates for tank hunting with +1 D. Not anymore.
What unit would you spend 2 CP to have a further turn of Dev Doctrine, actually? Almost 100% of buffed heavy weapons are single shot, multi damage. +1D on them is almost inconsequential.
The waste-of-a-FA-slot three-man Suppressors? The less-efficient, static, bland Firestrike Servo-turrets?
BrianDavion wrote: give them a shoot twice ability with lascanons, multi-melta's and missile launches on all core units in the devestator doctine? that'd be nutso powerful and enchourage use of devestators for an early alpha
But then they'd just have to change it again once Devs are moved to Legends after the next Marine book.
Besides, Primaris don't make great use of Lascannons and Missile Launchers. They've got their own fancier (and more trademarkable) versions ("Las-Talon").
That "after next marine book they go to legends!" claim is getting bit old. This is already 3rd time it's been claimed. GW isnt' in a hurry.
At this point I've become convinced that every time someone predicts that firstborn will be legends'ed in the next codex GW gives firstborn another buff
Your lips to GW's ears
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the attitude of "That's too bad, but you're still playing Marines so suck it!" is unhealthy.
A rule nerf is a rule nerf no matter what army it's for, and further diluting the identity of the Imp Fists by not reworking their Chapter traits just reeks of laziness from GW.
Why is it unhealthy? What's wrong with nerfs by default?
That's not the point. This is a problem of internal, not external balance. They got much worse than the rest of alternatives. Playing them seems like shooting yourself in the foot now.
At least you can solve that by making list as another chapter instead. Yellow white scars or salamanders
Silly but that's what you get with chapter specific rules.
I fully acknowledge that it's an option many underpowered armies don't get.
Yet, it's not as easy as that. First, if you swap Chapters you stop being able to use your special characters. No biggie, maybe. But there you have them gathering dust on the shelf.
Then, if you aren't one of those players that only care about the game, playing an army painted as Imperial Fists with rules for (f.e.) Salamanders feels like an abomination. Plus some tournaments don't allow that. You must at least modify the paintjob enough that they may pass as a homebrex chapter. I don't have the willpower to modifiy each and every model in my army
broxus wrote: WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.
Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!
So, lets see, it doesn't work for Heavy Bolters...which are +1 damage ALL the time now..., and Grav Cannons, which you probably shouldn't really be firing at vehicles anyway. Is there anything else you'd be firing at vehicles that this really matters for? I'm not familiar with some of your Heavy vehicle weapons.
And that slight restriction seems a fair trade for now, if I'm not mistaken, having a Strat which turns on the Devastator Doctrine for a unit for a turn.
Heavy Onslaught Gatling and Assault Cannons are S6 and very good candidates for tank hunting with +1 D. Not anymore.
What unit would you spend 2 CP to have a further turn of Dev Doctrine, actually? Almost 100% of buffed heavy weapons are single shot, multi damage. +1D on them is almost inconsequential.
The waste-of-a-FA-slot three-man Suppressors? The less-efficient, static, bland Firestrike Servo-turrets?
Eradicators.
You mean, going from average 5.5/7.5 to 6.5/8.5 is really worth 2 CP? They do so much damage an extra pip of damage add almost nothing. +1 to wound or reroll 1's to hit plus no move-shoot penalty are waaaay more impactful. Even +6 range if you didn't move. It's a sh*tty buff for Heavy Eradicators.
tneva82 wrote: That "after next marine book they go to legends!" claim is getting bit old.
Only if you think that this was going to be a quick thing.
tneva82 wrote: This is already 3rd time it's been claimed. GW isnt' in a hurry.
Of course they're not. You can't just remove something as iconic as regular Marines within an edition.
deadairis wrote: Why is it unhealthy? What's wrong with nerfs by default?
I didn't say nerfs were unhealthy. I said the attitude of "your nerfs don't matter because your army is good" and lauding that over people is unhealthy.
deadairis wrote: Why is it unhealthy? What's wrong with nerfs by default?
I didn't say nerfs were unhealthy. I said the attitude of "your nerfs don't matter because your army is good" and lauding that over people is unhealthy.
This is why I dislike the whole "Nerf buff" terms in balance discussion. It implies that anything "weaker" than it was before is a negative and anything stronger is a positive; but it only looks at each rule in full isolation from the rest of the context of the whole block. It's a flawed way to approach things because, yes, a reduction in power of one rule might well not be a nerf because other rules have increased; or because the original function led to it being overpowered. Ergo not all nerfs are bad. Heck some make a codex better because they remove something "auto include" and shift it to "good choice". Which in turn opens up other choices.
AduroT wrote: Since the Imperial Fists doctrine applies to so few shots now, what if they upped it to d3?
definataly not, the idea that IF should have had D3 & D4 heavy bolters, the heavy1 version of any primaris weapon.
Their buff in the first place was poor game design.
They definatly don't need D6+D3 lascannon, lastalons, not to mention autocannons. You chose to play the defensive siege specialist chapter stop complaining they dont delete vehicals with bolters.
deadairis wrote: Why is it unhealthy? What's wrong with nerfs by default?
I didn't say nerfs were unhealthy. I said the attitude of "your nerfs don't matter because your army is good" and lauding that over people is unhealthy.
This is why I dislike the whole "Nerf buff" terms in balance discussion. It implies that anything "weaker" than it was before is a negative and anything stronger is a positive; but it only looks at each rule in full isolation from the rest of the context of the whole block. It's a flawed way to approach things because, yes, a reduction in power of one rule might well not be a nerf because other rules have increased; or because the original function led to it being overpowered. Ergo not all nerfs are bad. Heck some make a codex better because they remove something "auto include" and shift it to "good choice". Which in turn opens up other choices.
Ok, let's see that way. We have several Space Marines Chapters. Some ere more powerful, other less so. GW picks one of the less competitive ones (shown by a wealth of tournament result data) and make one of their main rules weaker, while leaving all the equivalent rules from other Chapters untouched. All Chapters receive the same base rules, so any increase or decrease in power affected all of them equally.
Hence, the nerf (decrease in power if you want) was undeserved (affected one of the weaker Chapters only) and made internal balance even worse.
It's not: "hey, now Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons and Heavy Onslaughts are bad I will use other weapons". But: "hey, now the only rule that made IF stand out is even more niche and restricted I will pick a more competitive Chapter". GW solved nothing due to a misplaced nerf within an internal balance scenario.
Ice_can wrote:
AduroT wrote: Since the Imperial Fists doctrine applies to so few shots now, what if they upped it to d3?
definataly not, the idea that IF should have had D3 & D4 heavy bolters, the heavy1 version of any primaris weapon.
Their buff in the first place was poor game design.
They definatly don't need D6+D3 lascannon, lastalons, not to mention autocannons. You chose to play the defensive siege specialist chapter stop complaining they dont delete vehicals with bolters.
No, I picked a defensive siege specialist to get some f'in bennefits out of it. A couple of hilariously niche and useless psychic powers and stratagems that only interact with buildings no-one use or Area Terrain no-one gets into against us (because it doesn't give them any benefit to begin with) together with a pair of defensive stratagems which are not better than what other Chapters get from Strats, Psychic powers or passive abilities is definitely not enough to justify pickig them.
If I can't get an effective offensive bonus due to fluff, at least make us be tankier than the rest (we definitely aren't). Or let us interact with scenery in a meaningful way (we can't). But GW simply don't care.
We got the worst designed Supplement and we are stuck with it (nerfed by FAQ) for...years?
AduroT wrote: Since the Imperial Fists doctrine applies to so few shots now, what if they upped it to d3?
definataly not, the idea that IF should have had D3 & D4 heavy bolters, the heavy1 version of any primaris weapon.
Their buff in the first place was poor game design.
They definatly don't need D6+D3 lascannon, lastalons, not to mention autocannons. You chose to play the defensive siege specialist chapter stop complaining they dont delete vehicals with bolters.
No, I picked a defensive siege specialist to get some f'in bennefits out of it. A couple of hilariously niche and useless psychic powers and stratagems that only interact with buildings no-one use or Area Terrain no-one gets into against us (because it doesn't give them any benefit to begin with) together with a pair of defensive stratagems which are not better than what other Chapters get from Strats, Psychic powers or passive abilities is definitely not enough to justify pickig them.
If I can't get an effective offensive bonus due to fluff, at least make us be tankier than the rest (we definitely aren't). Or let us interact with scenery in a meaningful way (we can't). But GW simply don't care.
We got the worst designed Supplement and we are stuck with it (nerfed by FAQ) for...years?
Worst designed, fairly sure IF artillery spam was why Thundefire Cannons, Whirlwind all got nerfed repeatedly.
Also the Heavybolter hurican bolter centurions that do MW and extra damage and extra hits on 6's was toxic to play against.
They used to have rules that allowed them to fortify buildings in their deployment zone that would work, you can have +2sv in cover in yiur deployment zone.
Also you do already have an offensive buff you get free bolter hits on 6's.
Jesus, you could have way worse trait like if you don't move you get light cover, you get a 6+FNP but not against MW. You roll 2d6 and pick the highest for advance rolls.
Ice_can wrote: They used to have rules that allowed them to fortify buildings in their deployment zone that would work, you can have +2sv in cover in yiur deployment zone.
This specifically wouldn't really work, because it encourages you to sit in your deployment zone with a gunline... something that it seems 9th edition is actively trying to get rid of, what with the spread-out objectives.
I do like the stratagem solution that they've gone with, instead - once per game, fortify a bit of terrain for +1Sv - it being once per game stops you doing it to everything at deployment, and you lose the bonus if you move away. That's an elegant idea that makes it ideal for using once you reach an objective to hold onto it.
The trouble is, as it's (by necessity) a once-per-game strat that only affects one unit, it's absolutely no replacement for a proper decent Chapter Tactic.
Ice_can wrote: They used to have rules that allowed them to fortify buildings in their deployment zone that would work, you can have +2sv in cover in yiur deployment zone.
This specifically wouldn't really work, because it encourages you to sit in your deployment zone with a gunline... something that it seems 9th edition is actively trying to get rid of, what with the spread-out objectives.
I do like the stratagem solution that they've gone with, instead - once per game, fortify a bit of terrain for +1Sv - it being once per game stops you doing it to everything at deployment, and you lose the bonus if you move away. That's an elegant idea that makes it ideal for using once you reach an objective to hold onto it.
The trouble is, as it's (by necessity) a once-per-game strat that only affects one unit, it's absolutely no replacement for a proper decent Chapter Tactic.
Most missions have 1 objective sometimes 2 you can hold or contest from your deployment zone.
I think having 1+ saves for anyone holding your backfield objectives would be quite a boost as it makes them rediculous to shift.
Poor Imperial Fists that can no longer spam anti infantry weapons and destroy vehicles by sheer number of dice and also shred infantry.
All nerfs to super doctrines are a good thing. Those are a small bonus that you get on top of everything. Imperial Fists are still expected to spam a ton of bolter but now they have a reason for using anti tank weapons.
Since they got three consecutive rounds of nerfs.Thats the past, it doesn't count Late 8th and 9th edition they have managed two top 3 in tournaments, one in the weird Australian meta.
An army that is still making top 3 is hardly a bad army. Imperial Fists are a long shot from being the worst marines, and even then the worst marines are quite ahead a ton of armies. I have been playing Dark Angels since 7th and we have been consistently the worst space marine chapter in all of 8th, by like, a ton. And they were still fun to play agaisnt everything that wasnt a top tier meta list. Maybe imperial fists players should learn to use other units that aren't Dev Centurions?
Tiberius501 wrote: Ummm, DA are utterly bonkers now? They just seem like the best choice.
deathwing terminators are stupid good. if you want to run a terminator army deathwing is MASSIVLY the way to go.
Ah I heard all the special dudes got the Transhuman rule baked in, but is it just their termies?
Any Infantry with inner Circle rule....so Azrael, Ezekiel, Interrogator chaplains, plus all terminators in the index.
Ah not as bad as I thought then, I should definitely fact check before I post on the internet haha. Still seems very strong for those units, especially with the +1 to hit for standing still now.
Has anyone noticed that in the Necron Codex, Tomb Blades can take Particle Beamers but there aren't any points listed for Particle Beamers in the back of the codex?
Does the 25ppm base cost for Tomb Blades include the Particle Beamer?
Knute wrote: Has anyone noticed that in the Necron Codex, Tomb Blades can take Particle Beamers but there aren't any points listed for Particle Beamers in the back of the codex?
Does the 25ppm base cost for Tomb Blades include the Particle Beamer?
Bueller?
Points include base wargear and weapons now, and just list a cost to upgrade to something else.
Knute wrote: Has anyone noticed that in the Necron Codex, Tomb Blades can take Particle Beamers but there aren't any points listed for Particle Beamers in the back of the codex?
Does the 25ppm base cost for Tomb Blades include the Particle Beamer?
Bueller?
Yes that's the way the new points layout works - if there's no cost listed it's free and included with the base cost of the model.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Besides, Primaris don't make great use of Lascannons and Missile Launchers. They've got their own fancier (and more trademarkable) versions ("Las-Talon").
Ah, yes, the sneaky 6th edition Primaris who waited a whole decade before jumping out, eh?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Besides, Primaris don't make great use of Lascannons and Missile Launchers. They've got their own fancier (and more trademarkable) versions ("Las-Talon").
Ah, yes, the sneaky 6th edition Primaris who waited a whole decade before jumping out, eh?
It is sad what they did to the IF doctrine. They should have made it work on STR 6 weapons or make it a new rule instead. I don’t think anyone really ever loved it. In fact, most hate the IF supplement since it seems to be so poorly designed and not well thought out. Here are a few options for a redesigned rule:
-In the tactical doctrine IF bolter weapons can reroll hit rolls of 1 (Bolter Fusillades light)
-in the tactical doctrine wound rolls of 6 on bolter weapons does an additional -1 AP (storm of fire light)
-in the tactical doctrine IF units ignore -1 AP weapons while in cover (Architect of war light)
All much more interesting and better suited for the IF than the current or previous versions.
I have to say, aside from the ridiculous shenanigans for the various Primaris Intercessors, Captains, and Lieutenants loadouts, the new datasheets + points layout is fantastic and intuitive.
Sasori wrote: Blood Angels are looking super scary now. Sanguinary Guard seem nuts.
I agree they look really cool. My only annoyance is that I’ll mostly be playing crusade with power, so I have to take either 4 or 10 of them. For some reason they didn’t have any in between option even though that’s a huge leap in unit size haha.
broxus wrote: It is sad what they did to the IF doctrine. They should have made it work on STR 6 weapons or make it a new rule instead. I don’t think anyone really ever loved it. In fact, most hate the IF supplement since it seems to be so poorly designed and not well thought out. Here are a few options for a redesigned rule:
-In the tactical doctrine IF bolter weapons can reroll hit rolls of 1 (Bolter Fusillades light)
-in the tactical doctrine wound rolls of 6 on bolter weapons does an additional -1 AP (storm of fire light)
-in the tactical doctrine IF units ignore -1 AP weapons while in cover (Architect of war light)
All much more interesting and better suited for the IF than the current or previous versions.
It's great to see this constructive attitude.
But I think those rules are too weak and would not change IF playstyle as other Doctrines do.
Look at how impactful RR 1s + no m&s penalties, count as stationary, +1 to wound for melta+flammer, are.
I'm actually happier with what we have (and I don't like it a lot ).
I can't suggest something good right now, so maybe I shouldn't trash your ideas too much
Mulletdude wrote: For those that have seen the leaked dex, have you noticed a point discrepancy from the master of the chapter in the front and the back of the book?
Spoiler:
No idea how that could have happened but the bottom points should be the real ones going by Power Levels
Knute wrote: Has anyone noticed that in the Necron Codex, Tomb Blades can take Particle Beamers but there aren't any points listed for Particle Beamers in the back of the codex?
Does the 25ppm base cost for Tomb Blades include the Particle Beamer?
Bueller?
Points include base wargear and weapons now, and just list a cost to upgrade to something else.
You say 'now' as though that wasn't the way points worked for literal decades before GW totally ballsed them up last edition...
AduroT wrote: Since the Imperial Fists doctrine applies to so few shots now, what if they upped it to d3?
Or flat two, so that their lascanon have the melta rule but without the range restriction .
Heavy Eradicators at 6 + d6 damage in melta range?
I mean, if you’re in Heavy Eradicator Melta range you’re already boned, what’s a bit more overkill?
If you’re in that range for the turn one Devastator Doctrine then it’s probably your own fault and you deserve it.
If it’s not turn one, it’s costing them two CP to do it at least.
broxus wrote: It is sad what they did to the IF doctrine. They should have made it work on STR 6 weapons or make it a new rule instead. I don’t think anyone really ever loved it. In fact, most hate the IF supplement since it seems to be so poorly designed and not well thought out. Here are a few options for a redesigned rule:
-In the tactical doctrine IF bolter weapons can reroll hit rolls of 1 (Bolter Fusillades light)
-in the tactical doctrine wound rolls of 6 on bolter weapons does an additional -1 AP (storm of fire light)
-in the tactical doctrine IF units ignore -1 AP weapons while in cover (Architect of war light)
All much more interesting and better suited for the IF than the current or previous versions.
they choose STR 7 because that's where the weapons generally stop being rapid fire and start being single shot. they don't want IFs spammin D2 assault cannons etc.
why does everyone think being IF makes you better at destroying fortifications? That's the Iron Warriors territory. So why would knowing how to hit a building better make your weapons better than everyone elses?
Fluff since IA in the 90s has IF and IW both equally adept at siegecraft and fortification. Pretty hard to master one w/o being intimately familiar with the other.
Mulletdude wrote: For those that have seen the leaked dex, have you noticed a point discrepancy from the master of the chapter in the front and the back of the book?
They're different enough that that's not going to be typos. One of those pics is going to be from an older, test version of the book (if not both).
nintura wrote: why does everyone think being IF makes you better at destroying fortifications? That's the Iron Warriors territory. So why would knowing how to hit a building better make your weapons better than everyone elses?
The knowledge of how to build a better fortification also grants the knowledge of how to better tear one down... it's long been the case that both IF andIW are great at both.
nintura wrote:why does everyone think being IF makes you better at destroying fortifications? That's the Iron Warriors territory. So why would knowing how to hit a building better make your weapons better than everyone elses?
This guy doesn't know the fluff.
JWBS wrote:Fluff since IA in the 90s has IF and IW both equally adept at siegecraft and fortification. Pretty hard to master one w/o being intimately familiar with the other.
Super Ready wrote:
Mulletdude wrote: For those that have seen the leaked dex, have you noticed a point discrepancy from the master of the chapter in the front and the back of the book?
They're different enough that that's not going to be typos. One of those pics is going to be from an older, test version of the book (if not both).
nintura wrote: why does everyone think being IF makes you better at destroying fortifications? That's the Iron Warriors territory. So why would knowing how to hit a building better make your weapons better than everyone elses?
The knowledge of how to build a better fortification also grants the knowledge of how to better tear one down... it's long been the case that both IF andIW are great at both.
These two do.
IF and Iron Warriors are mirror images from each other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nintura wrote:why does everyone think being IF makes you better at destroying fortifications? That's the Iron Warriors territory. So why would knowing how to hit a building better make your weapons better than everyone elses?
This guy doesn't know the fluff.
JWBS wrote:Fluff since IA in the 90s has IF and IW both equally adept at siegecraft and fortification. Pretty hard to master one w/o being intimately familiar with the other.
Super Ready wrote:
Mulletdude wrote: For those that have seen the leaked dex, have you noticed a point discrepancy from the master of the chapter in the front and the back of the book?
They're different enough that that's not going to be typos. One of those pics is going to be from an older, test version of the book (if not both).
nintura wrote: why does everyone think being IF makes you better at destroying fortifications? That's the Iron Warriors territory. So why would knowing how to hit a building better make your weapons better than everyone elses?
The knowledge of how to build a better fortification also grants the knowledge of how to better tear one down... it's long been the case that both IF andIW are great at both.
These two do.
IF and Iron Warriors are mirror images from each other.
This is shameful, GW is going to make so much money off of players buying models that are temporarily overpowered. They usually make money off of this because of a new codex buffing a unit for an entire edition, that is acceptable. This time around they are using a mass FAQ which is temporary! They are targeting their largest market which is Space Marines with this temporary buff tactic. I don't mind players taking whatever they feel is strongest its just the idea that it is going to change and people are going to buy all of these models for a temporary high due to a FAQ.
Crimson wrote: Has it already been pointed out that the points for chapter command are different in the point summary section than in the main rules section?
There's some weird typos like that in the necron codex too - for example the command barge's base loadout on the datasheet is the gauss cannon, with the option to take a tesla instead, but the points cost says you pay an extra 5 for gauss, and doesn't list a points cost for tesla at all. Seems clear the intent is for gauss to cost 5 points more than tesla, but they've listed it two different ways on the sheet and the points area.
yukishiro1 wrote: There's some weird typos like that in the necron codex too - for example the command barge's base loadout on the datasheet is the gauss cannon, with the option to take a tesla instead, but the points cost says you pay an extra 5 for gauss, and doesn't list a points cost for tesla at all. Seems clear the intent is for gauss to cost 5 points more than tesla, but they've listed it two different ways on the sheet and the points area.
GW can always be counted on being consistent with their disregard for proof reading
yukishiro1 wrote: There's some weird typos like that in the necron codex too - for example the command barge's base loadout on the datasheet is the gauss cannon, with the option to take a tesla instead, but the points cost says you pay an extra 5 for gauss, and doesn't list a points cost for tesla at all. Seems clear the intent is for gauss to cost 5 points more than tesla, but they've listed it two different ways on the sheet and the points area.
We (and I include myself) have been assuming that default wargear doesn't cost points, but a closer look shows that isn't true (DA terminator squads have to pay for their default powerfists, for example, but the sergeant gets his power sword for free, since it isn't listed)
The point value section has a header paragraph with an explanation:
You must then add points for each weapon, or other item of wargear, that is included in that unit if it is listed in that's unit's entry (weapons and other wargear not listed in a units entry cost no additional points to include in that unit)
So if it has a price, you pay it, default gear or not.
So the CCB's tesla is free, and the gauss costs 5 points. It doesn't actually matter which is the 'upgrade.'
yukishiro1 wrote: There's some weird typos like that in the necron codex too - for example the command barge's base loadout on the datasheet is the gauss cannon, with the option to take a tesla instead, but the points cost says you pay an extra 5 for gauss, and doesn't list a points cost for tesla at all. Seems clear the intent is for gauss to cost 5 points more than tesla, but they've listed it two different ways on the sheet and the points area.
We (and I include myself) have been assuming that default wargear doesn't cost points, but a closer look shows that isn't true (DA terminator squads have to pay for their default powerfists, for example, but the sergeant gets his power sword for free, since it isn't listed)
The point value section has a header paragraph with an explanation:
You must then add points for each weapon, or other item of wargear, that is included in that unit if it is listed in that's unit's entry (weapons and other wargear not listed in a units entry cost no additional points to include in that unit)
So if it has a price, you pay it, default gear or not.
So the CCB's tesla is free, and the gauss costs 5 points. It doesn't actually matter which is the 'upgrade.'
Right...but the presentation of that is awkward and unintuitive. Why give you the points cost of what isn't the base layout, and then a points premium for what is the base layout? Either the tesla should be the base layout, or the gauss should and the tesla should be listed as -5 points.
It's weird because in general the new layout is way easier to use. But stuff like that is just weirdly confusing for no gain.
So basically they list the cheapest loadout instead of the default. Then of you use the default loadout you add points. So, they think we know how to do addition but not subtraction?
Books to my local store delayed in the mail. Blah.
Anyone who got theirs able to tell me if the Forge World stuff (Canoptek Acanthrites, Tomb Stalkers, Tomb Sentinels, Night Shroud Bombers, and Sentry Pylons) made it into the book or if I need to wait for a Forge World one?
(I realize this isn't really news and rumors anymore, but what the hell, still might be a good place to ask)
£29 for the warriors and £34.50 for the destroyers.
Considering you can get the Recruit Edition for £32.50 (Warriors) and the Elite Edition for £65 (Warriors and Destroyers), they seem a far better deal than buying either of those sets, especially if you can be bothered with the hassle of selling the marines and unwanted characters on!
Could maybe understand it if they were proper multi-part versions, but as it's the same models as the starter they seem very overpriced!
Tavis75 wrote: £29 for the warriors and £34.50 for the destroyers.
AUD$77 and $90, respectively, over here. They're havin' a real fething laugh with these. I paid literally half that for my second set of Destroyers. Should'a bought more.
It is odd pricing, I guess GW just priced them without considering the multi-packs or they have considered the multipacks and figure anyone buying lots will be getting split kits off ebay and the like or the starter sets and selling the marines on; so they figure they'll profit more per sale. Heck with a second print of Indomitus going out there's still over 10 or so £45 Necorn halves on ebay right now and prices only go up to around £60-70 for sane prices.
Destroyers are at least not "too bad" as they are supposed to be elite. Warriors for push fit at that price I'd have thought 20 rather than 10 in the pack.
And yet the Hexmark character is at a normal character price for GW and the Doomstalker is a good price for a big stalking model.
Overread wrote: Destroyers are at least not "too bad" as they are supposed to be elite.
Keep tellin' yourself that...
Well I did end up with 4 sets of Indomitus. I'll just have to look at warriors. At £30 new a set of Indomitus for 2 sets of warriors you can spend £60 and get spare skorpek, spare leaders; spare destroyers, spare reanimator - soo many spares!
While it does indeed make sense to purchase the starter sets, the new Necron warriors are still reasonable compared with the other standard kits in the GW range.
For example, the Banshees are £32.50 with only 3/4 of the sprue content and contains only 5 ladies, only one of which has any weapon options. In comparison, the necron warriors are £29 with 10 warriors, each with 2 weapon and head options, three scarab swarms and more than double the bases. Gamewise, the banshees will only get you 3 power, while the warriors & scarabs will fetch 7 power.
The warrior set is pretty good in that for a single box you get two units to field; troops and fast attack.
That said, the problem remains that the Recruit set contains an HQ Necron character( 11 power out of the box! ) for only £3.50 more. And thats not including the Primaris Lieutenant and assault marines - and the rest of the set's contents. There really is no reason for any player to purchase the necron warrior set at all, and will remain so until the current starter sets are discontinued...
...which makes me wonder if they will now change the starter sets annually as they had done with Kill Team and Warhammer Underworlds. Maybe 18 months from now they might give marines a rest( just hear me out! ) and go with Ad-mech( Imperium! ) & Genecults, or Tau & Chaos Marines( thats right "Marines"! Chill already! ).
SamusDrake wrote: While it does indeed make sense to purchase the starter sets, the new Necron warriors are still reasonable compared with the other standard kits in the GW range.
For example, the Banshees are £32.50 with only 3/4 of the sprue content and contains only 5 ladies, only one of which has any weapon options. In comparison, the necron warriors are £29 with 10 warriors, each with 2 weapon and head options, three scarab swarms and more than double the bases. Gamewise, the banshees will only get you 3 power, while the warriors & scarabs will fetch 7 power.
That doesn't make the Necron cost reasonable. It just highlights how outrageous the Banshee cost is.
Yup, cannot help but feel those of us that bought multiple copies of Indomitus for personal use are the true winners here. 40 rrp Warriors for the cost of one rrp Indomitus box is daft. Thing is GW are still making plenty of money so it is not going to change.
It is also galling that it was only 12 odd months ago that the, in comparison, relatively reasonably priced Ossiarch Bone Reapers were released.
Tbh I'm shocked the Warriors aren't more expensive.
Don't get me wrong, they're still far too much, but I was expecting them to be more around Sisters of Battle or Chaos Space Marines levels of $$$
SamusDrake wrote: That said, the problem remains that the Recruit set contains an HQ Necron character( 11 power out of the box! ) for only £3.50 more. And thats not including the Primaris Lieutenant and assault marines - and the rest of the set's contents. There really is no reason for any player to purchase the necron warrior set at all, and will remain so until the current starter sets are discontinued...
...which makes me wonder if they will now change the starter sets annually as they had done with Kill Team and Warhammer Underworlds. Maybe 18 months from now they might give marines a rest( just hear me out! ) and go with Ad-mech( Imperium! ) & Genecults, or Tau & Chaos Marines( thats right "Marines"! Chill already! ).
Agreed in your assessment. The Warriors box is priced for the long term. Even if they don’t change up the starter sets annually, we know in a few years they won’t be about, and the Warrior box still will be.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That doesn't make the Necron cost reasonable. It just highlights how outrageous the Banshee cost is.
It still holds up compared to the Harlequin Troupe set which is £25 and contains 5 troops and 1 HQ. The Troupe set is also 3/4 of the plastic of the Warrior set. Both of these sets provide basic troops and a secondary unit which are a HQ for the Harles and Fast Attack for the Warriors. As both of these kits contain two units and the warrior kit is new plastic and there is more of it, I honestly don't feel bad about it.
And you are right about the Banshees being too expensive, and is why I used them as an example. At best the Banshees are a £26.50 kit as they are comparable to the Troupe kit at £25, and we'll allow GW £1.50 for inflation. There is no way in hell that those Banshees are worth £7.50 inflation.
I do judge a kit price by its plastic content, only cutting slack for characters as they are likely to sell less units than the other types. The warrior plastic sprue( its actually two ) is roughly equal to a Starweaver kit at £25...so £1.50 inflation( being generous to GW here ) puts it up to £27.50...but the Starweaver kit comes with but a single clear-plastic base, while the Warrior kit contains 13 bases - 10x32mm and 3x40mm bases...
Put it this way, I find GW product in general to be outrageously expensive and are constantly moaning about price. I'm a born and bred penny pincher. But unlike the Banshees, honestly not feeling the injustice here.
EDIT: On that note...I might just put in an order for some more players and a 'Weaver or two!
Rather than banshees just look at other 10 troop(ie core unit released). 35 for 10.
Necron wariors are very cheap compared to gw standard. "problem" is starter sets being aggressively discounted to lure in new blood but if gw drops warrior price too much difference to other 10 model troops becomes ridiculous.
tneva82 wrote: Necron wariors are very cheap compared to gw standard.
That's more an indictment of GW's standard prices than it is a celebration of the "cheaper" Necron Warriors.
We're all there with you on that one, and because of the GW standard I wouldn't be surprised if most of us are resorting to discount with online retailers.
By habit of shopping online, when GW says £29 I instead see £23.
Monolith I can certainly see going up in price. It's bigger than it was before (or at least more complex) and its game role has shifted to be closer to the Oblisk in nature. Indeed the codex makes note the Obilisk is an air superiority unit so the Monolith is the ground superiority.
Prices on them are hard to guess, but I'd be very shocked if either breached £100.
Wraiths I'm guessing will hit at £35 or so £30 if we are lucky.
Yep I’m scared too haha. I am kind of hoping they aren’t more than the Silent King, but the more they hype a model, the more I feel like it’s gonna get a big price tag, so mr Void Dragon is gonna be a pricey mofo.
Maybe it's a question for a different thread, but: has anyone found any use or purpose for the Hammerfall bunker?
It's basically a static tank with BS 4+, two glorified lascannon shots/a souped up blast assault cannon and a gimmicky rule for shooting against a few units achieving nothing (3 HB shots per unit in range). A Predator Annihilator with HBs seems way more attractive.
No interesting special rule. No transport capacity. No stratagem interaction.
As an IF player I hate to hate that unit.
DanielFM wrote: Maybe it's a question for a different thread, but: has anyone found any use or purpose for the Hammerfall bunker?
It's basically a static tank with BS 4+, two glorified lascannon shots/a souped up blast assault cannon and a gimmicky rule for shooting against a few units achieving nothing (3 HB shots per unit in range). A Predator Annihilator with HBs seems way more attractive.
No interesting special rule. No transport capacity. No stratagem interaction.
As an IF player I hate to hate that unit.
well at least DA armies will have them hitting on 3s
DanielFM wrote: Maybe it's a question for a different thread, but: has anyone found any use or purpose for the Hammerfall bunker?
It's basically a static tank with BS 4+, two glorified lascannon shots/a souped up blast assault cannon and a gimmicky rule for shooting against a few units achieving nothing (3 HB shots per unit in range). A Predator Annihilator with HBs seems way more attractive.
No interesting special rule. No transport capacity. No stratagem interaction.
As an IF player I hate to hate that unit.
If it could use the land speeder target designator like the whirlwind can, it might have had a chance.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Maybe they forgot that they were meant to give it Deep Strike rules.
Seems highly unlikely. Considering it can shoot at every eligible unit, every turn? If it could Deep Strike, it would be way too powerful if you allowed it to get a central board position. And having that kind of threat means you'd be forced into getting a 9" bubble on any important locations by turn 2.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Maybe they forgot that they were meant to give it Deep Strike rules.
Or maybe they forgot to give it "shoots with no LOS required".
It basically looks like a beefy Whirlwind.
my guess is they where going to give it deep strike and then play testing revealed how broken a deep striking unit that "can shoot at everything it sees" is. they then removed deep strike instead of "shoots all it sees"
H.B.M.C. wrote: Maybe they forgot that they were meant to give it Deep Strike rules.
Or maybe they forgot to give it "shoots with no LOS required".
It basically looks like a beefy Whirlwind.
my guess is they where going to give it deep strike and then play testing revealed how broken a deep striking unit that "can shoot at everything it sees" is. they then removed deep strike instead of "shoots all it sees"
The only part that shoots at everything is a heavy bolter that hits on 4+. Is hardly call that broken if it deep struck.
Hopefully we'll get some prices today (I think they usually sneak out on Mondays), personally I'm thinking somewhere around £65 for the Void Dragon, but expecting the Monolith to pass the £100 mark, unless they've done some really clever stuff then it looks like it's going to need a lot of plastic, due to all the overlapping layers and the amount of detail. Hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised though!
Monolith over £100 - colour me surprised! Are those their prices or the GW prices, if they are GW at least 3rd party the Monolith gets under £100, but still that's a LOT!
Void Dragon is about where I'd expect, same for the Scenery and the Ophydians.
Overread wrote: Monolith over £100 - colour me surprised! Are those their prices or the GW prices, if they are GW at least 3rd party the Monolith gets under £100, but still that's a LOT!
Void Dragon is about where I'd expect, same for the Scenery and the Ophydians.
The monolith is sized and ruled to be in competition with the obelisk/vault so I'm not shocked overly, I thought it might be 95 rather than 105 though.
Tiberius501 wrote: The only part that shoots at everything is a heavy bolter that hits on 4+. Is hardly call that broken if it deep struck.
I'd imagine whoever plays Tau at GW vetoed it. Drop it next to Tau castle and watch flow, it would be amusing counter to all the spam of 54759 units of broken drones deleting shooting of whole armies if that thing could threaten them all at once...
Cynista wrote: Excuse the pun, but I hope the Monolith tanks and they are forced to review both the LoW listing and the price. What a way to mess up an iconic unit
I still think, even as a LoW, it seems like a good unit. For just a little more points than a Repulsor it brings a hell of a lot more. So an extra 3CP just means take a couple less relics and it doesn’t seem too bad. Might not be the best unit ever, but it doesn’t seem bad.
Tiberius501 wrote: I still think, even as a LoW, it seems like a good unit. For just a little more points than a Repulsor it brings a hell of a lot more. So an extra 3CP just means take a couple less relics and it doesn’t seem too bad. Might not be the best unit ever, but it doesn’t seem bad.
Not having Fly and not benefiting from Dynasty Codes is a pretty massive nerf. You can take the T. Vault for more points, that doesn't benefit from Dynasty codes anyway, but is actually really good now.
The Void Dragon has really grown on me. Multiple heads are awesome, the fact it has a canoptek construct on its back with claws aimed at the neck is a cool touch, etc.
The Void Dragon has really grown on me. Multiple heads are awesome, the fact it has a canoptek construct on its back with claws aimed at the neck is a cool touch, etc.
I just don't get option 3, I understand it's got a jewel for a face, the little puckered lips on its head really ruin it for me.
The Void Dragon has really grown on me. Multiple heads are awesome, the fact it has a canoptek construct on its back with claws aimed at the neck is a cool touch, etc.
I just don't get option 3, I understand it's got a jewel for a face, the little puckered lips on its head really ruin it for me.
The little tips/horns at the top of the head? I think they all have it, but you just can't see them behind the swirly magic
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wait, if the C'tan is actually the crystal in its chest, why would it care if the construct stabs it in the neck?
Because the neck is the manifestation from the Crystal - destroy the manifestation and the energies likely retreat back to the shard. Or they are lost and the shard has to recuperate its energies. Have to say I really like this model all the more - the idea that its got a canoptek rider; the swirling energies and the optional faces!
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wait, if the C'tan is actually the crystal in its chest, why would it care if the construct stabs it in the neck?
Because the neck is the manifestation from the Crystal - destroy the manifestation and the energies likely retreat back to the shard. Or they are lost and the shard has to recuperate its energies. Have to say I really like this model all the more - the idea that its got a canoptek rider; the swirling energies and the optional faces!
Yeah ok that's fair. A little inconsistent with the other models though, as they lack a canoptek control unit, but they are pretty old and were released prior to the retcon.
Aye, plus I'd expect if we got the old C'Tan updated they'd be as big as the new one along with the greater demons. The only one that will then be a bit odd is the one that comes with the Obelisk; but that could easily move to being a lesser C'Tan shard in the future.
Overread wrote: Aye, plus I'd expect if we got the old C'Tan updated they'd be as big as the new one along with the greater demons. The only one that will then be a bit odd is the one that comes with the Obelisk; but that could easily move to being a lesser C'Tan shard in the future.
Yeah, when he's on his own, he'd be a *little* small. But in the Obelisk, he's on par with the Burning One shard being tortured on the Silent King's throne. Although the SK C'tan may still have larger proportions, despite being only a torso and head
They originally spread across the star’s surface to feed and were so rarefied that it took the Necrontyr aeons to notice them. The Starlight Bridge technology compressed the heck out of them, plus each shard is only a portion so could be. No idea why it’d be crystalline though.
If the Void Dragon shards can 'harness the power of unrefined noctilith', why does the stone on the model's base have Necron carvings in it? Are we really supposed to believe that the Necrons actually keep a load of noctilith which can be attuned to focus warp energy around? Why would they even do that? It's stupid.
Why is the void Dragon being able to fly using 'eldritch blackstone energy in its purest form' (why does 'blackstone energy' even give the power of flight?) notable? The other C'tan all seem to be able to hover just fine without it.
The Void Dragon even already had the (suggested) power (Sentient Singularity) to manipulate gravity anyway!
If the C'tan shards are actual physical crystals* how do they manage to fly away and escape..? Or feed on stars? Or phase out? Why do the Necrons bother binding C'tan in tesseract labyrinths and Vaults with their necrodermis if they're actually a rock?
*So, so, dumb - they're shards of the C'tan's original essences/power; not like shards of glass...
Is the crystal on the left side of the chest because that's (roughly) where our heart is? Why would it be there on an immaterial star vampire?
Why is the canoptek construct necessary when failsafes already exist against C'tan trying to escape (resonance shackles, binding codes, control relays)? Why not use a control collar like on the Transcendent C'tan? Doesn't relying on the canoptek just create a massive weak spot?
Lord Damocles wrote: If the Void Dragon shards can 'harness the power of unrefined noctilith', why does the stone on the model's base have Necron carvings in it? Are we really supposed to believe that the Necrons actually keep a load of noctilith which can be attuned to focus warp energy around? Why would they even do that? It's stupid.
Szarekh has initiated a scheme that is simply a masterstroke, creating arrays of immense pylons made of noctilith. This mysterious substance can enhance or shut down psychic powers, and even Belisarius Cawl sees it as the way to defeat Chaos. Where these pylons are raised, whole regions of realspace are cut off from the warp – in its fearful ignorance, Mankind has dubbed this the Pariah Nexus. Any living creatures within this area of space find themselves afflicted with a numbing despair that only worsens with time until they become little more than a mindless husk – the perfect vessels for experimentation on the reversal of biotransference. Due to the negative charge of the pylons, the manifestation of daemonic or psychic energies within these regions becomes vastly more difficult. The Necron’s plans are finally coming to fruition.
Maybe the crystal is the labryinth? It is kind of odd and inconsistent with previous incarnations. You don't see a crystal on the deceiver or nightbringer. I guess the designer just thought "hey, the necrons have a thing for crystals, so let's make the C'tan a crystal."
Or maybe the C'tan energies coalesce into a crystal after getting released and then it forms its body? But that would contradict the whole necrodermic shell thing.
Idk, GW keeps changing the rules on necrons. Its like they don't get their own lore or something.
Yeah Blackstone can also block psychic powers. Which is really dumb that it can do both. They should have just kept it as a pure blocker, not as both. That would have made things more consistent.
It makes sense that as the Necrons are beings of the material world; when they shattered and bound the Star Gods; that they did so in a fashion that allowed them to be bound to the physical world. Nestled within a crystal Shard is likely a very good way to maintain control and hold over otherwise energy beings.
I take the blackstone shards on the base to be remains of its physical prison that was fashioned around it; the prison brought to the battlefield and broken to release the shard for a limited period of time - hence why you need a Canpotek behind it to keep it in check and also to likely fashion a new prison and recapture and contain the power once the Necrons have no further need of the C'Tan
A control Collar is likely just as unreliable and reliable as a Canpotek machine - its basically the same technology only the Canoptek has the bonus of being mobile. Last thing you want is to disable your shard when it gets out of control and then have it stolen.
Lord Damocles wrote: If the Void Dragon shards can 'harness the power of unrefined noctilith', why does the stone on the model's base have Necron carvings in it? Are we really supposed to believe that the Necrons actually keep a load of noctilith which can be attuned to focus warp energy around? Why would they even do that? It's stupid.
Szarekh has initiated a scheme that is simply a masterstroke, creating arrays of immense pylons made of noctilith. This mysterious substance can enhance or shut down psychic powers, and even Belisarius Cawl sees it as the way to defeat Chaos. Where these pylons are raised, whole regions of realspace are cut off from the warp – in its fearful ignorance, Mankind has dubbed this the Pariah Nexus. Any living creatures within this area of space find themselves afflicted with a numbing despair that only worsens with time until they become little more than a mindless husk – the perfect vessels for experimentation on the reversal of biotransference. Due to the negative charge of the pylons, the manifestation of daemonic or psychic energies within these regions becomes vastly more difficult. The Necron’s plans are finally coming to fruition.
Imagine you're a Necron, who's going to build a significant portion of your tomb out of noctilith - do you:
a) polarise it so that it repels the warp
b) Just leave it unrefined so that any random enemy could potentially come along and polarise it so that it enhances the power of the warp instead
Hmm. Tough one.
It just makes the Necrons look like complete fools.
At that point you're better off just not using noctilith as a building material to begin with.
You're making assumptions that just anybody and their brother can come along and change the charge on the Noctilith and that unrefined Notilith has no charge at all.
Ghaz wrote: You're making assumptions that just anybody and their brother can come along and change the charge on the Noctilith and that unrefined Notilith has no charge at all.
Well, no. Abaddon was able to do it with the Noctilith Crowns, so it's not like it's so difficult to accomplish (also since anti-warp noctilith can be changed into warp-enhancing by sorcery, presumably neutral noctilith should be more easily altered).
And it's not as though there weren't a load of highly psychic races running around the galaxy when the Necrons retreated into stasis...
Or... the blackstone on the model's base isn't supposed to be unrefined; and so it really bears no relation to the shard's ability to harness it's power..?
Even if unrefined noctilith does have a charge (either way), you'd still have to be dumb as mud to not polarise it to repel the warp if you're going to be building your tomb out of it.
They're perfectly capable of doing it on a massive scale, as illustrated by the structures of the Pariah Nexus, Cadian Pylons, Cerberus Shroud etc.
Also, what happens if the shard is deployed somewhere that there isn't just a load of - to quote Forgebane; 'supernaturally valuable' - blackstone lying around?
Overread wrote: It makes sense that as the Necrons are beings of the material world; when they shattered and bound the Star Gods; that they did so in a fashion that allowed them to be bound to the physical world. Nestled within a crystal Shard is likely a very good way to maintain control and hold over otherwise energy beings.
I take the blackstone shards on the base to be remains of its physical prison that was fashioned around it; the prison brought to the battlefield and broken to release the shard for a limited period of time - hence why you need a Canpotek behind it to keep it in check and also to likely fashion a new prison and recapture and contain the power once the Necrons have no further need of the C'Tan
A control Collar is likely just as unreliable and reliable as a Canpotek machine - its basically the same technology only the Canoptek has the bonus of being mobile. Last thing you want is to disable your shard when it gets out of control and then have it stolen.
Idk, I don't think I like the idea of the crystal being the labyrinth / c'tan containment device. I always thought it to be more technological than geological. Something like the Lemarchand Box from hellraiser, except more necron like.
The crystal concept doesn't seem right. It seems more magical or fantasy than sci-fi, which is what necrons are supposed to be.
Ghaz wrote: You're making assumptions that just anybody and their brother can come along and change the charge on the Noctilith and that unrefined Notilith has no charge at all.
Well, no. Abaddon was able to do it with the Noctilith Crowns, so it's not like it's so difficult to accomplish (also since anti-warp noctilith can be changed into warp-enhancing by sorcery, presumably neutral noctilith should be more easily altered).
And it's not as though there weren't a load of highly psychic races running around the galaxy when the Necrons retreated into stasis...
Or... the blackstone on the model's base isn't supposed to be unrefined; and so it really bears no relation to the shard's ability to harness it's power..?
Even if unrefined noctilith does have a charge (either way), you'd still have to be dumb as mud to not polarise it to repel the warp if you're going to be building your tomb out of it.
They're perfectly capable of doing it on a massive scale, as illustrated by the structures of the Pariah Nexus, Cadian Pylons, Cerberus Shroud etc.
Also, what happens if the shard is deployed somewhere that there isn't just a load of - to quote Forgebane; 'supernaturally valuable' - blackstone lying around?
Maybe the Void Dragon can attune blackstone to be anti-warp just by being around it? In the old lore the Void Dragon is supposed to have the greatest amount of control over the material realm / reality, to the point of making entire legions practically indestructible, which is way the Eldar invented the D-Cannons to counter him by literally throwing the warp at his forces, so perhaps its an allusion to that?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Idk, I don't think I like the idea of the crystal being the labyrinth / c'tan containment device. I always thought it to be more technological than geological. Something like the Lemarchand Box from hellraiser, except more necron like.
The crystal concept doesn't seem right. It seems more magical or fantasy than sci-fi, which is what necrons are supposed to be.
The descriptions of Valeria's labyrinth from Codex: Grey Knights (5th ed.) and Hequiroth's from The World Engine (chapter 4), as well as depictions of presumed labyrinths (eg. Ahmontekh in Deathwatch: The Outer Reach (pg.114)) are cubes.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Maybe the Void Dragon can attune blackstone to be anti-warp just by being around it? In the old lore the Void Dragon is supposed to have the greatest amount of control over the material realm / reality, to the point of making entire legions practically indestructible, which is way the Eldar invented the D-Cannons to counter him by literally throwing the warp at his forces, so perhaps its an allusion to that?
In which case, the blackstone shouldn't be covered in Necron hieroglyphs (which is my whole problem with it on the model).
The inclusion of noctilith in some form makes some thematic sense, since the Void Dragon was the architect of the pylons and the Great Work to begin with, but the implementation - or at least the background justification/description of it - is dumb.
GW's brief design notes often cause these sorts of problems if you think about them for more than thirty seconds - the notes on the Marine Captain from the Indomitus box in the latest White Dwarf (456) are all kinds of wacky, for example.
Lord Damocles wrote: The descriptions of Valeria's labyrinth from Codex: Grey Knights (5th ed.) and Hequiroth's from The World Engine (chapter 4), as well as depictions of presumed labyrinths (eg. Ahmontekh in Deathwatch: The Outer Reach (pg.114)) are cubes.
So basically a LaMarchand box. Cool.
Also inconsistent with the new model, so I don't know what's going on with it design wise :/
There is no reason at all to assume that this shard alone is contained in a crystal inside a blackstone cube, which has to be carried to the battlefield.
We're not told that (you'd think that would be worthy of mention, given the other details which are presented in the article).
Besides which, tesseract labyrinths are small enough to hold in your hand, not big 'ol stone boxes.
I can get behind the crystal just being some sort of symbol of the Void Dragon, like the Nightbringer has his scythe, and the Burning one is on fire; but it actually being the C'tan shard makes very little sense.
I chalk up the lack of visible crystal in the Nightbringer and Deceiver to any crystal being inside their necrodermis body already. When I first saw the Void Dragon model, I thought it was either just starting to coalesce or form its body, or healing after damage, hence the gaps and pixels. Seems silly to otherwise leave a visible gap to the crystal. Also when I first saw the model, again before GW's latest explanation, I didn't think of the crystal as an actual physical mineral but more of a construct of energy that just looked like a crystal.
As for the various different appearance and containment methods of the various C'tan, I know RL it is from the different release dates, but headcanon-wise I explain it away as just different designs based on dynasty with the Tesseract Vault being the safest containment method for a larger shard.
The Void Dragon has really grown on me. Multiple heads are awesome, the fact it has a canoptek construct on its back with claws aimed at the neck is a cool touch, etc.
Why they started previews with the most boring head? The other two are much better. Though only GW can call the last one faceless
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah Blackstone can also block psychic powers. Which is really dumb that it can do both. They should have just kept it as a pure blocker, not as both. That would have made things more consistent.
How? Moderator in nuclear reactors can both start it and shut it down depending on application, to give just one easy example...
The Void Dragon has really grown on me. Multiple heads are awesome, the fact it has a canoptek construct on its back with claws aimed at the neck is a cool touch, etc.
Why they started previews with the most boring head? The other two are much better. Though only GW can call the last one faceless
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah Blackstone can also block psychic powers. Which is really dumb that it can do both. They should have just kept it as a pure blocker, not as both. That would have made things more consistent.
How? Moderator in nuclear reactors can both start it and shut it down depending on application, to give just one easy example...
Isn't a Moderator a material that is used to slow down neutrons to ensure a continuous fission reaction? I don't think it stops neutrons completely, which is what you need to halt a reactor, nor does it start the reaction. Besides, that's not the same thing as what blackstone can do. Blackstone can either stop psychic activity or amplify it. Those are two very different properties that are in opposition to each other.
Maybe the idea is that it works like a magnet, where it can either repel or attract warp energy. Which would make sense, I suppose. If that were the case though, then why don't Eldar or Chaos use it?
The Void Dragon has really grown on me. Multiple heads are awesome, the fact it has a canoptek construct on its back with claws aimed at the neck is a cool touch, etc.
Why they started previews with the most boring head? The other two are much better. Though only GW can call the last one faceless
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah Blackstone can also block psychic powers. Which is really dumb that it can do both. They should have just kept it as a pure blocker, not as both. That would have made things more consistent.
How? Moderator in nuclear reactors can both start it and shut it down depending on application, to give just one easy example...
Isn't a Moderator a material that is used to slow down neutrons to ensure a continuous fission reaction? I don't think it stops neutrons completely, which is what you need to halt a reactor, nor does it start the reaction.
Besides, that's not the same thing as what blackstone can do. Blackstone can either stop psychic activity or amplify it. Those are two very different properties that are in opposition to each other.
Shouldn't a positive charge and a negative charge have effects that are in opposition to each other since they are opposites?
The Void Dragon has really grown on me. Multiple heads are awesome, the fact it has a canoptek construct on its back with claws aimed at the neck is a cool touch, etc.
Why they started previews with the most boring head? The other two are much better. Though only GW can call the last one faceless
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah Blackstone can also block psychic powers. Which is really dumb that it can do both. They should have just kept it as a pure blocker, not as both. That would have made things more consistent.
How? Moderator in nuclear reactors can both start it and shut it down depending on application, to give just one easy example...
Isn't a Moderator a material that is used to slow down neutrons to ensure a continuous fission reaction? I don't think it stops neutrons completely, which is what you need to halt a reactor, nor does it start the reaction.
Besides, that's not the same thing as what blackstone can do. Blackstone can either stop psychic activity or amplify it. Those are two very different properties that are in opposition to each other.
Shouldn't a positive charge and a negative charge have effects that are in opposition to each other since they are opposites?
Yeah, after writing that it occurred to me that it could work like a polarized magnet. It also occurred to me that Chaos and Eldar would also want to use it for its warp-attracting properties, which is a little inconsistent as I don't think they do use it? An interesting concept, nonetheless.
Chaos used bits of the Cadian pylons to make the Noctilith Crowns, and used sorcery to amplify the warp-dampening effects of other parts (???) in an attempt to cut off the warp routes away from Terra in Watchers of the Throne: The Emperor's Legion.
The Blackstone Fortresses make use of the amplification effect (presumably to power the warp canons? It doesn't seem to affect psykers within the Fortress though...)
Lord Damocles wrote: Chaos used bits of the Cadian pylons to make the Noctilith Crowns, and used sorcery to amplify the warp-dampening effects of other parts (???) in an attempt to cut off the warp routes away from Terra in Watchers of the Throne: The Emperor's Legion.
The Blackstone Fortresses make use of the amplification effect (presumably to power the warp canons? It doesn't seem to affect psykers within the Fortress though...)
Ok that's cool, so they are updating it to be more consistent with the new usage.
Maybe we'll see actual miniatures of Chaos sorcerers and Eldar using blackstone.
The Void Dragon has really grown on me. Multiple heads are awesome, the fact it has a canoptek construct on its back with claws aimed at the neck is a cool touch, etc.
Why they started previews with the most boring head? The other two are much better. Though only GW can call the last one faceless
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah Blackstone can also block psychic powers. Which is really dumb that it can do both. They should have just kept it as a pure blocker, not as both. That would have made things more consistent.
How? Moderator in nuclear reactors can both start it and shut it down depending on application, to give just one easy example...
Isn't a Moderator a material that is used to slow down neutrons to ensure a continuous fission reaction? I don't think it stops neutrons completely, which is what you need to halt a reactor, nor does it start the reaction.
Besides, that's not the same thing as what blackstone can do. Blackstone can either stop psychic activity or amplify it. Those are two very different properties that are in opposition to each other.
Shouldn't a positive charge and a negative charge have effects that are in opposition to each other since they are opposites?
Yeah, after writing that it occurred to me that it could work like a polarized magnet. It also occurred to me that Chaos and Eldar would also want to use it for its warp-attracting properties, which is a little inconsistent as I don't think they do use it? An interesting concept, nonetheless.
The chaos fleet in the Avenging Son novel does in fact use it as 'an attractor'
Nah it looks great. Not everything has to be super gritty looking in 40k ya know. Plus from the interviews it looks like the writer and artist are pretty big fans.
Nah it looks great. Not everything has to be super gritty looking in 40k ya know. Plus from the interviews it looks like the writer and artist are pretty big fans.
Not so much the look, the dialogue is just bland as feth. To each their own, I’m not a big comic fan anyway.
You can't really judge from just three pages of dialogue. Let's refrain from immediately calling it gak until people have actually read the full thing.
Segersgia wrote: You can't really judge from just three pages of dialogue. Let's refrain from immediately calling it gak until people have actually read the full thing.
This is what they chose to promote it. If this is really what they thought was good to lead the product launch with then damn straight I’m gonna judge it. Personally I would have chosen something more evocative of the setting rather than three pages of talking to a tech priest about logistics.
Segersgia wrote: You can't really judge from just three pages of dialogue. Let's refrain from immediately calling it gak until people have actually read the full thing.
I agree with Nostromodamus on this. The point of promo material is to draw people in*. If this is what they're leading with, I'd hate to see what they're not showing.
The art is bland and the dialogue is utter drek. Hilariously stilted sentence fragments. This is not engaging. Even when dressed up with shiny 40k buzzwords.
*its the same thing when people get defensive about bad models and photographs, and how it will 'look different' once in hand. Photography is how models are sold. If the photographs look bad, they're doing it wrong.
Nah it looks great. Not everything has to be super gritty looking in 40k ya know. Plus from the interviews it looks like the writer and artist are pretty big fans.
Not so much the look, the dialogue is just bland as feth. To each their own, I’m not a big comic fan anyway.
Here's what I've been able to gather from reading the forums. All of these are real arguments - just made by different people.
1 - The monolith got a 2+ save and 4 more wounds so it needed to get a big points increase
2 - The monolith costs so many points so it's obvious it needed to be moved to the LoW slot
3 - The monolith is a LoW so it makes sense that it would cost as much $ as a knight
Segersgia wrote: You can't really judge from just three pages of dialogue. Let's refrain from immediately calling it gak until people have actually read the full thing.
I agree with Nostromodamus on this. The point of promo material is to draw people in*. If this is what they're leading with, I'd hate to see what they're not showing.
The art is bland and the dialogue is utter drek. Hilariously stilted sentence fragments. This is not engaging. Even when dressed up with shiny 40k buzzwords.
*its the same thing when people get defensive about bad models and photographs, and how it will 'look different' once in hand. Photography is how models are sold. If the photographs look bad, they're doing it wrong.
suppose that depends what you're looking for in the comic. I look at it and I see evidance that the comic's not just gonna be bolter porn
Here's what I've been able to gather from reading the forums. All of these are real arguments - just made by different people.
1 - The monolith got a 2+ save and 4 more wounds so it needed to get a big points increase
2 - The monolith costs so many points so it's obvious it needed to be moved to the LoW slot
3 - The monolith is a LoW so it makes sense that it would cost as much $ as a knight
I think the truth is likely the other way round:
1 - GW redesigned the Monolith to be far more detailed and larger
2 - This makes it a large plastic kit with a lot of sprues
3 - This makes it expensive to buy, as much as a Knight
4 - As the kit now costs as much as a knight GW needs to improve its rules to make it seem worth the cost of buying
Here's what I've been able to gather from reading the forums. All of these are real arguments - just made by different people.
1 - The monolith got a 2+ save and 4 more wounds so it needed to get a big points increase
2 - The monolith costs so many points so it's obvious it needed to be moved to the LoW slot
3 - The monolith is a LoW so it makes sense that it would cost as much $ as a knight
I think the truth is likely the other way round:
1 - GW redesigned the Monolith to be far more detailed and larger
2 - This makes it a large plastic kit with a lot of sprues
3 - This makes it expensive to buy, as much as a Knight
4 - As the kit now costs as much as a knight GW needs to improve its rules to make it seem worth the cost of buying
Not entirely sure they succeeded at that last bit though. I mean it is, somewhat bizarrely, actually good at close combat now (S8 D3 auto hits!) and has a 2+ save but basically nothing else has changed, in exchange for the extra cost of 3CP.
Edit: also, not totally enthralled by the golfball aesthetic either.
Here's what I've been able to gather from reading the forums. All of these are real arguments - just made by different people.
1 - The monolith got a 2+ save and 4 more wounds so it needed to get a big points increase
2 - The monolith costs so many points so it's obvious it needed to be moved to the LoW slot
3 - The monolith is a LoW so it makes sense that it would cost as much $ as a knight
I think the truth is likely the other way round:
1 - GW redesigned the Monolith to be far more detailed and larger
2 - This makes it a large plastic kit with a lot of sprues
3 - This makes it expensive to buy, as much as a Knight
4 - As the kit now costs as much as a knight GW needs to improve its rules to make it seem worth the cost of buying
1 - GW redesigned the Monolith to be far more detailed and larger
2 - GW makes it more expensive as its bigger and more detailed
3 - GW thinks they can make it even more expensive if they give it more rules and make it a LOW so they do just that
4 - GW has record profits again
Nah it looks great. Not everything has to be super gritty looking in 40k ya know. Plus from the interviews it looks like the writer and artist are pretty big fans.
Pretty sure we knew the artist was a fan the moment he put Tau in Venom, Space Knight without GW's permission.
Having read the comic last night my impression is that its aimed at perhaps young teenagers based on the style of story and language used. It's likely comparable to the kids stories that GW has published already in terms of its target audience.
Which isn't bad, but isn't as good for more adult readers who might prefer a slightly more mature take in terms of the style of language and story presentation.
That and I get the feeling its made more for those who are not familiar with the game; since it includes some short lore pages, but also again tends to use language and styles more befitting a casual to no understanding of the setting as opposed to someone willing to put up with "odd" things because they know its part of the setting.
The comic is okay imo. There are worse comics and there are better ones. However, I know a few people who know nothing about 40k that picked it up and enjoyed it. Which is probably something they're hoping for
Here's what I've been able to gather from reading the forums. All of these are real arguments - just made by different people.
1 - The monolith got a 2+ save and 4 more wounds so it needed to get a big points increase
2 - The monolith costs so many points so it's obvious it needed to be moved to the LoW slot
3 - The monolith is a LoW so it makes sense that it would cost as much $ as a knight
I think the truth is likely the other way round:
1 - GW redesigned the Monolith to be far more detailed and larger
2 - This makes it a large plastic kit with a lot of sprues
3 - This makes it expensive to buy, as much as a Knight
4 - As the kit now costs as much as a knight GW needs to improve its rules to make it seem worth the cost of buying
1 - GW redesigned the Monolith to be far more detailed and larger
2 - GW makes it more expensive as its bigger and more detailed
3 - GW thinks they can make it even more expensive if they give it more rules and make it a LOW so they do just that
4 - GW has record profits again
Yeah - I think the real truth is some blend of your two lists. Sales being one of the forces directing design and rules.
I just thought it was amusing that there actually were people on here making arguments like - "Well it's a LoW now so that's why it should cost this many $."
Like what? How are those related?
Here's what I've been able to gather from reading the forums. All of these are real arguments - just made by different people.
1 - The monolith got a 2+ save and 4 more wounds so it needed to get a big points increase
2 - The monolith costs so many points so it's obvious it needed to be moved to the LoW slot
3 - The monolith is a LoW so it makes sense that it would cost as much $ as a knight
I think the truth is likely the other way round:
1 - GW redesigned the Monolith to be far more detailed and larger
2 - This makes it a large plastic kit with a lot of sprues
3 - This makes it expensive to buy, as much as a Knight
4 - As the kit now costs as much as a knight GW needs to improve its rules to make it seem worth the cost of buying
1 - GW redesigned the Monolith to be far more detailed and larger
2 - GW makes it more expensive as its bigger and more detailed
3 - GW thinks they can make it even more expensive if they give it more rules and make it a LOW so they do just that
4 - GW has record profits again
Yeah - I think the real truth is some blend of your two lists. Sales being one of the forces directing design and rules.
I just thought it was amusing that there actually were people on here making arguments like - "Well it's a LoW now so that's why it should cost this many $."
Like what? How are those related?
I don't think anyone has said that in those terms? I think I might have said it's larger model with LoW level rules and points as a methodology to justify the price compared to equivalent products. That's very different to "It's in the LoW slot so slap $$$$$$ on it"
Dark Angels were said to be the first codex of 2021, with a Xenos book following. We'll have to wait and see whether that follows on but the top codex does have quite a few wings.
oni wrote: I'm guessing the two redacted covers are Dark Angels and Chaos Space Marines respectively.
Pretty sure that's the image they used to represent all xenos at one point. So its going to be a xenos book.
Hopefully Eldar, Dark Eldar or Orks. I think they still have a fair bit of their range still in finecast?
oni wrote: I'm guessing the two redacted covers are Dark Angels and Chaos Space Marines respectively.
Pretty sure that's the image they used to represent all xenos at one point. So its going to be a xenos book.
Hopefully Eldar, Dark Eldar or Orks. I think they still have a fair bit of their range still in finecast?
We all knew that Dark Angels and a Xenos book are scheduled for January so they somehow managed to make an announcement out of telling us less than what we already know.
Well, hopefully it's obvious but - given the standard approach of putting an archetypal army member front and centre of the artwork - there's no way those are the actual Codex covers. If they used those, the hint would be too blatant.
The xenos book is using art from the miscellaneous xenos races art in the rule book, that's not its cover. The wording of "xenos race rise up to put those Space Marines in their place" says stealer cults to me.
The images say practically nothing except it's one Imperial and one Xenos race. They are NOT the actual covers. We know that Dark Angels is the Imperial one (unless they changed their mind, but i doubt they will want that kind of heat since it's just a supplement that follows on from the SM codex, it needs releasing sooner rather than later), and we know that the second is Xenos, but the image gives us zero clues. It could literally be any of them. I doubt Eldar as they need a significant range review. It could easily be nids, GSC, Orks or Drukhari.
The Newman wrote: We all knew that Dark Angels and a Xenos book are scheduled for January so they somehow managed to make an announcement out of telling us less than what we already know.
Well, we didn't actually know January, just 'early 2021.' I'm honestly surprised both are January. But they told us xenos both times. They didn't name DA this time, but we were already explicitly told that. They could have easily reiterated that here, but largely this is an increase in info with the specific month for each pair of books.
Biggest downside to this is people are going to expect a pair of books every month from now on, because they're establishing a pattern. First time it doesn't happen, there is going to be a big fuss.
Asmodai wrote: I wonder if the Codex cover all in gold depicting the Imperial Palace might be Custodes.
Nah. Da confirmed, xenos also confirmed, just not which.
Those are placeholders to hide factions. Though with gw naming da before why bother. Unsurprisingly already caused speculation sleepikg beauty in cover
bullyboy wrote: The images say practically nothing except it's one Imperial and one Xenos race. They are NOT the actual covers. We know that Dark Angels is the Imperial one (unless they changed their mind, but i doubt they will want that kind of heat since it's just a supplement that follows on from the SM codex, it needs releasing sooner rather than later), and we know that the second is Xenos, but the image gives us zero clues. It could literally be any of them. I doubt Eldar as they need a significant range review. It could easily be nids, GSC, Orks or Drukhari.
There's been multiple eldar codexes without range review. No quarantee anybody get more than random hq model with codex if that.
Overread wrote: That second one makes me think more Dark Eldar or Slaanesh than anything else.
Well they said one was a Xenos Codex so not goign to be Slaanesh (unless worhippers of the god in that race) - Eldar being a major enemy of NEcrons may make some sense.
The other seems certain to be Dark Angels - which would sort out all the supplement Marines
Hopefully the various other "Lt" HQs come out quickly with the various Codexes.
Overread wrote: That second one makes me think more Dark Eldar or Slaanesh than anything else.
Well they said one was a Xenos Codex so not goign to be Slaanesh (unless worhippers of the god in that race) - Eldar being a major enemy of NEcrons may make some sense.
The other seems certain to be Dark Angels - which would sort out all the supplement Marines
Hopefully the various other "Lt" HQs come out quickly with the various Codexes.
Definitely dark angels, they were mentioned in the 'Codex Show' article about SM and Necrons.
Though with the other 'LT' models, I'd put the likelihood of the Xenos codex being Orks or Dark Eldar pretty high. We know those models exist.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And still nothing on the release date for the Imperial Armour Compendium.
...Fires of Cyraxus...
Yeah no.
Gadzilla continually gets riled up whenever there's no mention of the Compendium with things that clearly aren't going to mention the Compendium.
We know the Compendium is coming. They previewed it with the Codex Show back in September. It's very likely to come out later this year, but it's not something that would have been part of their Codex Roadmap.
Grimgold wrote: So with DA in January, I guess that means no primarch. It was always a long shot though.
Not sure I follow you. January isn't any more or less likely to produce a Primarch than any other month.
GW can toss one out any time they redo a codex, supplement or some sort of event book. If they're playing their cards close to their chest, it could still theoretically happen. Though I'd expect some hype.
Anyway, we've known this book was coming early next year since the 12th of September:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/12/the-codex-show/
what is the artwork that is immediately above the Xenos artwork? All of the other ones have their codex covers pictured above or below the actual book (minus the DA one) and there is an image here, but i don't recognize it. It has different skulls impaled on spikes?
Nevermind..it's just generic art from the Xenos section in rulebook.
Grimgold wrote: So with DA in January, I guess that means no primarch. It was always a long shot though.
Not sure I follow you. January isn't any more or less likely to produce a Primarch than any other month.
GW can toss one out any time they redo a codex, supplement or some sort of event book. If they're playing their cards close to their chest, it could still theoretically happen. Though I'd expect some hype.
Anyway, we've known this book was coming early next year since the 12th of September:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/12/the-codex-show/
Before there were rumblings ahead of time of primarches. Would be unlikely that would come completely out of thin air so to speak. Presumably refers to that
I imagine the worst possible outcome in it being a Harlequin codex. Technically Xenos; no new models needed; has White Dwarf rules like Deathwatch that need to be consolidated; doing pretty well in 9th so needs to be revised.
Oaka wrote: I imagine the worst possible outcome in it being a Harlequin codex. Technically Xenos; no new models needed; has White Dwarf rules like Deathwatch that need to be consolidated; doing pretty well in 9th so needs to be revised.
That's giving GW way too much credit. They're really bad at predicting the meta.
Besides, if GW had been troubled by Harlequins, they would have produced a FAQ with a paragraph explaining on how they didn't intend for <rules> to be used that way.
Oaka wrote: I imagine the worst possible outcome in it being a Harlequin codex. Technically Xenos; no new models needed; has White Dwarf rules like Deathwatch that need to be consolidated; doing pretty well in 9th so needs to be revised.
That's giving GW way too much credit. They're really bad at predicting the meta.
Besides, if GW had been troubled by Harlequins, they would have produced a FAQ with a paragraph explaining on how they didn't intend for <rules> to be used that way.
This is true. GW are almost always at least an edition behind when it comes to correcting really bad outliers with balance. I mean, Eldar Jetbikes and Wraithknights are still paying the price for what they were back in 6th-7th edition.
So if your favourite army isn’t mentioned above, don’t worry, you won’t have long to wait until you get your incredible new codex. This is set to be an exciting time for fans of every faction in the 41st Millennium
Well, if its only two codices a month being released then some players are going to be waiting a long time for their codex.
Oaka wrote: I imagine the worst possible outcome in it being a Harlequin codex. Technically Xenos; no new models needed; has White Dwarf rules like Deathwatch that need to be consolidated; doing pretty well in 9th so needs to be revised.
Surprised they haven't scheduled Deathwatch and Harlequins together, as they seem similar in that small-but-elite way and of course their White Dwarf rules.
I hope it is Harlequins but got a feeling it will be Drukhari as a model has already been teased in one of the previous previews.
So if your favourite army isn’t mentioned above, don’t worry, you won’t have long to wait until you get your incredible new codex. This is set to be an exciting time for fans of every faction in the 41st Millennium
Well, if its only two codices a month being released then some players are going to be waiting a long time for their codex.
Not at all. (Assuming they actually do 2/month until they're done). Past January, there are 17 more books (not including Inquisition, Assassins and lumping Sisters of Silence into Custodes, which they seem inclined to do anyway. Even if you DO want to count them, an 'Imperial Agents' makes 18). They'd be done by next October.
So if your favourite army isn’t mentioned above, don’t worry, you won’t have long to wait until you get your incredible new codex. This is set to be an exciting time for fans of every faction in the 41st Millennium
Well, if its only two codices a month being released then some players are going to be waiting a long time for their codex.
They'd be done by next October.
I'm probably miscounting somewhere, but there appears to be 30 hardback codices currently on the GW site. I'm not counting the WD-factions like Sisters of Silence, Inquisition or Ynnari.
Wouldn't that be 20 books going forward from January?
That's including the existing Marine supplements like Imperial Fists, White Scars etc. It's not clear if those are getting replaced - if they are, it's certainly not going to be for a looooong time yet, probably towards the end of the edition I would wager.
Of course, even if you include those, going at the rate of 2 a month would still mean being done in 2021.
Yeah, I wasn't counting the marine supplements. Even GW would have a hard time justifying new books to accommodate less than 2 pages of errata each.
Once Dark Angels are done, they really need to let loyalist marines sit in a corner for at least a couple years.
Ohh you sweet summer child
There will be a new wave of Marine releases in the New Year. Personally as its inevitable, I would like to see Chapter Serfs but I think its unlikely as these would have been great for some of the recent Marine gun platforms/vehicles rather than having each one manned by a Marine or even more stupidly an actual Tech Marine....
Be quite nice for the neglected Chapters to get the odd new unit now and again rather than yet more Wolves and Angels.
Thought it was a bit strange that they released all those new Marine sups last year only to drop 9th now. I suppose like the PA series they were written with 9th in mind.
Super Ready wrote: That's including the existing Marine supplements like Imperial Fists, White Scars etc. It's not clear if those are getting replaced - if they are, it's certainly not going to be for a looooong time yet, probably towards the end of the edition I would wager.
Of course, even if you include those, going at the rate of 2 a month would still mean being done in 2021.
Gw being gw you can bet they redo those. Marine books sell.
2 books a month? Unlikely that holds. Didn't hold in 8e and that needed codexes fast more than 9e does.
Oaka wrote: I imagine the worst possible outcome in it being a Harlequin codex. Technically Xenos; no new models needed; has White Dwarf rules like Deathwatch that need to be consolidated; doing pretty well in 9th so needs to be revised.
Surprised they haven't scheduled Deathwatch and Harlequins together, as they seem similar in that small-but-elite way and of course their White Dwarf rules.
I hope it is Harlequins but got a feeling it will be Drukhari as a model has already been teased in one of the previous previews.
These giant threads are so hard to find information in...
Do you have a link to the pic of the Drukhari model?
Yeah, I wasn't counting the marine supplements. Even GW would have a hard time justifying new books to accommodate less than 2 pages of errata each.
Once Dark Angels are done, they really need to let loyalist marines sit in a corner for at least a couple years.
Ohh you sweet summer child
There will be a new wave of Marine releases in the New Year. Personally as its inevitable, I would like to see Chapter Serfs but I think its unlikely as these would have been great for some of the recent Marine gun platforms/vehicles rather than having each one manned by a Marine or even more stupidly an actual Tech Marine....
Be quite nice for the neglected Chapters to get the odd new unit now and again rather than yet more Wolves and Angels.
Define new year, if you mean January I think you're being a little ambitious there.
Oaka wrote: I imagine the worst possible outcome in it being a Harlequin codex. Technically Xenos; no new models needed; has White Dwarf rules like Deathwatch that need to be consolidated; doing pretty well in 9th so needs to be revised.
Surprised they haven't scheduled Deathwatch and Harlequins together, as they seem similar in that small-but-elite way and of course their White Dwarf rules.
I hope it is Harlequins but got a feeling it will be Drukhari as a model has already been teased in one of the previous previews.
These giant threads are so hard to find information in...
Do you have a link to the pic of the Drukhari model?
Both Start Collectings for Death Watch and Space Wolf Primaris are "sold out online." And since both are getting Codexes next month, I imagine we'll get new variants of the SC. Shame, since I imagine the deathwatch one will be more primaris focused, despite the current lack of dedicated DW models (unless they get a new conversion set )
Oaka wrote: I imagine the worst possible outcome in it being a Harlequin codex. Technically Xenos; no new models needed; has White Dwarf rules like Deathwatch that need to be consolidated; doing pretty well in 9th so needs to be revised.
do you really want a codex that needs a massive influx of new models? given this codex will come on the heels of a massive necron and space marine release (the marines will likely be stretched out until january given past precident) I doubt the january xenos 'dex will have much new. Didn't they preview a hint of a new Ork mini?if so an Ork dex seems likely. assuming ragnar gets an independant release in november alongside space wolves' supplement, Ghaz'll need a release soonish after. and a release with 2 new characters would be well.. something.
Yeah, I wasn't counting the marine supplements. Even GW would have a hard time justifying new books to accommodate less than 2 pages of errata each.
Once Dark Angels are done, they really need to let loyalist marines sit in a corner for at least a couple years.
Ohh you sweet summer child
There will be a new wave of Marine releases in the New Year. Personally as its inevitable, I would like to see Chapter Serfs but I think its unlikely as these would have been great for some of the recent Marine gun platforms/vehicles rather than having each one manned by a Marine or even more stupidly an actual Tech Marine....
Be quite nice for the neglected Chapters to get the odd new unit now and again rather than yet more Wolves and Angels.
Oh I still half-suspect the Outriders will get a real box when the DA supplement rolls around. Given how long its taking to get to the new SM multi-part kits we know are coming, maybe the storm speeders as well. I just don't expect GW to plow through the 'codex standard' chapter supplements anytime soon.
Actually, per the Pendulum Swing approach to game design, I'll actually be surprised if they don't outright abandon the supplements at the end of 9th or beginning of 10th, and come up with an even worse idea.
GaroRobe wrote:Both Start Collectings for Death Watch and Space Wolf Primaris are "sold out online." And since both are getting Codexes next month, I imagine we'll get new variants of the SC. Shame, since I imagine the deathwatch one will be more primaris focused, despite the current lack of dedicated DW models (unless they get a new conversion set )
It may just be a reboxing, for the new logos and box style.
I would think we'd have seen a glimpse of something if SW/DW were getting new things.
The current DW upgrade frame says its 10 shoulder pads for SM and 2 for Terminators, but everything is on primaris models, including the 'terminator' pads on aggressors and inceptors. I suspect they're sticking with that.
And thank you, too!
It's a great-looking model but I kinda wish it wasn't an HQ choice. The Death Guard has an enormous variety of models across the range (especially adding in the third series of Space Marine Heroes) but I still feel I'd get more excited about a few more poses for say, Blightlord or Deathshroud Terminators.
And thank you, too!
It's a great-looking model but I kinda wish it wasn't an HQ choice. The Death Guard has an enormous variety of models across the range (especially adding in the third series of Space Marine Heroes) but I still feel I'd get more excited about a few more poses for say, Blightlord or Deathshroud Terminators.
that'd require a new kit which would, honestly be kinda a waste.
angryboy2k wrote: It's a great-looking model but I kinda wish it wasn't an HQ choice. The Death Guard has an enormous variety of models across the range (especially adding in the third series of Space Marine Heroes) but I still feel I'd get more excited about a few more poses for say, Blightlord or Deathshroud Terminators.
Unfortunately, with the exception of Typhus, none of the newer Deathguard HQ options are currently on sale.
Lord of Contagion w/Plaguereaper? OOP thanks to the Dark Imperium going away. Lord of Contagion w/Manreaper? OOP thanks to Lord Felthius going away. Malignant Plaguecaster? OOP thanks to Dark Imperium going away (and the one from the Heroes set is super rare, and also not on sale).
Deathguard are left with their resin Daemon Prince, and Chaos Lords/Sorcerers, none of whom get the Death Guard special rules because they're not Death Guard models, but generic Chaos Space Marine models (the Deathguard Codex being one of those places where no model = no rule is shown to its most stark and illogical conclusion).
They're in a sorry state, and need more than some new bloke with a toxin sprayer to fix them.
Lord of Contagion w/Plaguereaper? OOP thanks to the Dark Imperium going away.
Lord of Contagion w/Manreaper? OOP thanks to Lord Felthius going away.
Malignant Plaguecaster? OOP thanks to Dark Imperium going away (and the one from the Heroes set is super rare, and also not on sale).
Deathguard are left with their resin Daemon Prince, and Chaos Lords/Sorcerers, none of whom get the Death Guard special rules because they're not Death Guard models, but generic Chaos Space Marine models (the Deathguard Codex being one of those places where no model = no rule is shown to its most stark and illogical conclusion).
They're in a sorry state, and need more than some new bloke with a toxin sprayer to fix them.
I didn't actually consider that. I actually have all the Death Guard models released since Dark Imperium in the somewhat embarrassing condition of NIB/NOS and I'm super excited about "one day" having an entire army of models that are all individuals. It didn't really sink in that a whole bunch had just gone OOP.
Re the Codex tease, am I being too optimistic with wondering if the 'and more!' in red means that the actual tease could be hinting at more than one codex in January? Ergo the true reveal.
Assuming it's the Dark Angels Supplements (which won't be a big release) there would definitely be room for another actual codex release in addition to the Xeno codex.
Also note that those who have signed off on it being DA already, I thought they said that DA would be coming early next year, not necessarily first...
angryboy2k wrote: It's a great-looking model but I kinda wish it wasn't an HQ choice. The Death Guard has an enormous variety of models across the range (especially adding in the third series of Space Marine Heroes) but I still feel I'd get more excited about a few more poses for say, Blightlord or Deathshroud Terminators.
Unfortunately, with the exception of Typhus, none of the newer Deathguard HQ options are currently on sale.
Lord of Contagion w/Plaguereaper? OOP thanks to the Dark Imperium going away.
Lord of Contagion w/Manreaper? OOP thanks to Lord Felthius going away.
Malignant Plaguecaster? OOP thanks to Dark Imperium going away (and the one from the Heroes set is super rare, and also not on sale).
Deathguard are left with their resin Daemon Prince, and Chaos Lords/Sorcerers, none of whom get the Death Guard special rules because they're not Death Guard models, but generic Chaos Space Marine models (the Deathguard Codex being one of those places where no model = no rule is shown to its most stark and illogical conclusion).
They're in a sorry state, and need more than some new bloke with a toxin sprayer to fix them.
Seems like it may be a good time to do a run of the Dark Imperium Deathguard for a badly needed Start Collecting Box.
angryboy2k wrote: It's a great-looking model but I kinda wish it wasn't an HQ choice. The Death Guard has an enormous variety of models across the range (especially adding in the third series of Space Marine Heroes) but I still feel I'd get more excited about a few more poses for say, Blightlord or Deathshroud Terminators.
Unfortunately, with the exception of Typhus, none of the newer Deathguard HQ options are currently on sale.
Lord of Contagion w/Plaguereaper? OOP thanks to the Dark Imperium going away.
Lord of Contagion w/Manreaper? OOP thanks to Lord Felthius going away.
Malignant Plaguecaster? OOP thanks to Dark Imperium going away (and the one from the Heroes set is super rare, and also not on sale).
Deathguard are left with their resin Daemon Prince, and Chaos Lords/Sorcerers, none of whom get the Death Guard special rules because they're not Death Guard models, but generic Chaos Space Marine models (the Deathguard Codex being one of those places where no model = no rule is shown to its most stark and illogical conclusion).
They're in a sorry state, and need more than some new bloke with a toxin sprayer to fix them.
Seems like it may be a good time to do a run of the Dark Imperium Deathguard for a badly needed Start Collecting Box.
didn't we get some start collecting last december? including IIRCSC Primaris Vanguard? I could see know no fear being divided into two start collecting boxes. I could also see the two halfs of DI being used to make christmas battle forces. (
alextroy wrote: Seems like it may be a good time to do a run of the Dark Imperium Deathguard for a badly needed Start Collecting Box.
It's be an easy non-release release for the new DG Codex: A bunch of models that aren't actually new, but can be bought individually for the first time ever.
) & Genecults, or Tau & Chaos Marines( thats right "Marines"! Chill already! 
).
