Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Games Workshop aren't fixing Marines because they have a longer term plan with codex releases.

Guess we should all just wait to have a fair game until 2020? I think I understand now! I can just stomp kids with gman and knights until my ultras get fixed. Waits that is what I have been doing!

If you're playing kill points on an open table go right ahead. I don't care lol
Some lists are amazing in certain situations.

People who get upsets about army performance need to sort their priorities out. Are you a fluff player or a competitive player?
If you're competitive you play whatever is hot in the meta, you chase it so to speak. If you're a lore player you attach yourself to a faction. Any army can perform at a decent level, not all can win a major tournament.
If you're upset that your army can't win the LVO you have to ask yourself why? I don't care if my current favourite isn't performing at the top, I can still win 3 out of 5 games.
If you want to play the top list you'd better get used to changing faction every 3 months.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue a predator might even be 50% off from a command russ. Battlecannons being 22 pts is fething absurd.

At 30% off a quad las pred would be about 130 points. Right in the same ball park as an admech dunecrawler. Maybe a little better than it at that price but he has a lot of advantages including the ability to move and shoot without penalty and AP-4 and str 10 more and a 6++ and reroll 1's for saves. It should probably be 140 with quad las build IMO.

That's true, but the command russ is way undercosted, too. Unless you'd leave command russ alone in your scenario.

Martel732 wrote:
That's true, but the command russ is way undercosted, too. Unless you'd leave command russ alone in your scenario.

The way I'd fix it would be to balance to the top. No one gets upset when their units get buffed but people hate nerfs. Plus we have the most data on the top units already. Balance around them and all will be fine.

What would you rather have? a 140 point quad las pred? or a 180 point russ with a battle cannon? I think it's a fair comparison at those points. Also it if you do 30% drops on units like repulsors and storm ravens you see it's a little to much. For them it's more like 20%. In fact 20% on an executioner puts it at 230-240 which is exactly where it should be.

 Ishagu wrote:
Can anyone prove that Guilliman has any impact on the cost of units?

GW are not costing units around him. You're already paying for his aura with his substantial cost which is frankly stifling in any game at 2k or below.

It's one of these silly myths, same as the myth that transport capacity increases unit price, even though a Razorback chassis costs less than a Predator chassis.
The Space Marine books simply suffer from being the first books written for 8th edition. Nothing more.

You care to actually respond to the aura being a bad design choice or are you just going to deflect instead of actually countering the points being made about why the design of codex marines is bad.

I love the aura. Has pros and cons

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue a predator might even be 50% off from a command russ. Battlecannons being 22 pts is fething absurd.

At 30% off a quad las pred would be about 130 points. Right in the same ball park as an admech dunecrawler. Maybe a little better than it at that price but he has a lot of advantages including the ability to move and shoot without penalty and AP-4 and str 10 more and a 6++ and reroll 1's for saves. It should probably be 140 with quad las build IMO.

Do you seriously think a QuadLas Pred for 130 is about right?

BL Falcons are 132 points. Roughly the same, but 3xS8 AP-4 shots vs *4*xS*9* AP-3 shots. The Falcon has weaker guns, shorter range, and a full quarter *fewer shots*. It does have Fly and Chapter Tactics and a transport cap of 6. No way is the QuadLas Pred worse less per model than the BL Falcon.

The Railgun HH is even worse. 150 points for heavy *1*, but at S10, and wounds of 6 cause a couple MW too. The QuadLas pred heavily outclasses it.

Compared to xenos tanks in the same class, the QuadLas pred should *not* be 30% cheaper.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Games Workshop aren't fixing Marines because they have a longer term plan with codex releases.

Guess we should all just wait to have a fair game until 2020? I think I understand now! I can just stomp kids with gman and knights until my ultras get fixed. Waits that is what I have been doing!

If you're playing kill points on an open table go right ahead. I don't care lol
Some lists are amazing in certain situations.

People who get upsets about army performance need to sort their priorities out. Are you a fluff player or a competitive player?
If you're competitive you play whatever is hot in the meta, you chase it so to speak. If you're a lore player you attach yourself to a faction. Any army can perform at a decent level, not all can win a major tournament.
If you're upset that your army can't win the LVO you have to ask yourself why? I don't care if my current favourite isn't performing at the top, I can still win 3 out of 5 games.
If you want to play the top list you'd better get used to changing faction every 3 months.

So how exactly do you create a list that's ok for pick up games against a marines list but has enough puch to play against guard plus super soup, or are you suggesting people take 18 diffrent army's to a game day/night so they can have a balanced game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
I love the aura. Has pros and cons

That tells me you have zero interest in 40k actually being balanced then as the aura is terrible design if you have any intention of balancing vehicals and troops.

Command Russ is an outrageous anomaly. It is absurdly undercostred even by IG standards and renders other Russes obsolete.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue a predator might even be 50% off from a command russ. Battlecannons being 22 pts is fething absurd.

At 30% off a quad las pred would be about 130 points. Right in the same ball park as an admech dunecrawler. Maybe a little better than it at that price but he has a lot of advantages including the ability to move and shoot without penalty and AP-4 and str 10 more and a 6++ and reroll 1's for saves. It should probably be 140 with quad las build IMO.

Do you seriously think a QuadLas Pred for 130 is about right?

BL Falcons are 132 points. Roughly the same, but 3xS8 AP-4 shots vs *4*xS*9* AP-3 shots. The Falcon has weaker guns, shorter range, and a full quarter *fewer shots*. It does have Fly and Chapter Tactics and a transport cap of 6. No way is the QuadLas Pred worse less per model than the BL Falcon.

The Railgun HH is even worse. 150 points for heavy *1*, but at S10, and wounds of 6 cause a couple MW too. The QuadLas pred heavily outclasses it.

Compared to xenos tanks in the same class, the QuadLas pred should *not* be 30% cheaper.

Well maybe we could just charge guard the 90 point for a BS3+ battlecannon and say 60 for the BS4+ version then? Given they have the same stats as a knight battlecannon anyway.

The Knight battle cannons cost more because they're on a more resilient platform, the same reason a Lascannon costs 20 on a Guardsmen and 25 on a Space Marine.

 Crimson wrote:
Command Russ is an outrageous anomaly. It is absurdly undercostred even by IG standards and renders other Russes obsolete.

True - the drop in CA2019 was ...........bizare. As was Cultists up but not Guardsmen and reduction of Plasma but not Melta guns

However as we have Primaris - there is no room to fix marines really....

but

Compared to a command russ, most marine vehicles are way more than 20% off.

Not giving Chapter Tactics to all Marine vehicles (and SOBs who also got this Bul%^^%) is a direct slap in the face for no reason

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue a predator might even be 50% off from a command russ. Battlecannons being 22 pts is fething absurd.

At 30% off a quad las pred would be about 130 points. Right in the same ball park as an admech dunecrawler. Maybe a little better than it at that price but he has a lot of advantages including the ability to move and shoot without penalty and AP-4 and str 10 more and a 6++ and reroll 1's for saves. It should probably be 140 with quad las build IMO.

Do you seriously think a QuadLas Pred for 130 is about right?

BL Falcons are 132 points. Roughly the same, but 3xS8 AP-4 shots vs *4*xS*9* AP-3 shots. The Falcon has weaker guns, shorter range, and a full quarter *fewer shots*. It does have Fly and Chapter Tactics and a transport cap of 6. No way is the QuadLas Pred worse less per model than the BL Falcon.

The Railgun HH is even worse. 150 points for heavy *1*, but at S10, and wounds of 6 cause a couple MW too. The QuadLas pred heavily outclasses it.

Compared to xenos tanks in the same class, the QuadLas pred should *not* be 30% cheaper.

We are comparing to command russ, though. And IKs. Units that actually get used. The BL falcon with -1 to hit is probably worth more than a quad las pred. By a significant margin, actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:
The Knight battle cannons cost more because they're on a more resilient platform, the same reason a Lascannon costs 20 on a Guardsmen and 25 on a Space Marine.

It's still not worth 100 pts, though. Not even close.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Command Russ is an outrageous anomaly. It is absurdly undercostred even by IG standards and renders other Russes obsolete.

And is the standard for imperial tanks, because they are in so many lists.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue a predator might even be 50% off from a command russ. Battlecannons being 22 pts is fething absurd.

At 30% off a quad las pred would be about 130 points. Right in the same ball park as an admech dunecrawler. Maybe a little better than it at that price but he has a lot of advantages including the ability to move and shoot without penalty and AP-4 and str 10 more and a 6++ and reroll 1's for saves. It should probably be 140 with quad las build IMO.

Do you seriously think a QuadLas Pred for 130 is about right?

BL Falcons are 132 points. Roughly the same, but 3xS8 AP-4 shots vs *4*xS*9* AP-3 shots. The Falcon has weaker guns, shorter range, and a full quarter *fewer shots*. It does have Fly and Chapter Tactics and a transport cap of 6. No way is the QuadLas Pred worse less per model than the BL Falcon.

The Railgun HH is even worse. 150 points for heavy *1*, but at S10, and wounds of 6 cause a couple MW too. The QuadLas pred heavily outclasses it.

Compared to xenos tanks in the same class, the QuadLas pred should *not* be 30% cheaper.

Falcon has fly keyword and I said 140 points seems like a fair price. The flacon I run is starcannon with shuriken cannon and CTM and I play Ulthwe so I get a sweet 6+++ as well which is basically worth 2 more wounds. 138 points for 16" move and shoot closest target / clear heavy infantry then deploy firedragons. It's a little more versatile in it's targets. Seems fair to me. You eldar players always seem to think your nearly double mobility should just be free. That is pretty odd to me because I view mobility as being somewhat game changing. ESP in eldar vs SM matchups. That Falcon can easily charge your pred turn 2 and take a whole turn of shooting away from the pred.

I don't think the Falcon is particularly good though. Almost no reason to take it over the crimson hunter which is more durable and has better firepower and barely costs more. Unless you want to deploy a small unit of firedragons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:
The Knight battle cannons cost more because they're on a more resilient platform, the same reason a Lascannon costs 20 on a Guardsmen and 25 on a Space Marine.

You can't do that. Plus russ gets LC for 20 points....If you are gonna do that you have to be consistent across all armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Command Russ is an outrageous anomaly. It is absurdly undercostred even by IG standards and renders other Russes obsolete.

The idea I have is to balance to the top. We have data on those units because they get used. Just bringing everything to that level is the way to do it IMO. Yeah. Command russ is good - no doubt. Bringing 3 in my space marine lists was pretty standard for me the last 6 month. For as good as they are. You touch them they can't shoot. IMO that is a massive drawback that can't be ignored. Lots of high teir armor doesn't have this issue. Take a look at the custode tank. FFS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Command Russ is an outrageous anomaly. It is absurdly undercostred even by IG standards and renders other Russes obsolete.

True - the drop in CA2019 was ...........bizare. As was Cultists up but not Guardsmen and reduction of Plasma but not Melta guns

However as we have Primaris - there is no room to fix marines really....

but

Compared to a command russ, most marine vehicles are way more than 20% off.

Not giving Chapter Tactics to all Marine vehicles (and SOBs who also got this Bul%^^%) is a direct slap in the face for no reason

I agree. Direct slap to the face. My face hurts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue a predator might even be 50% off from a command russ. Battlecannons being 22 pts is fething absurd.

At 30% off a quad las pred would be about 130 points. Right in the same ball park as an admech dunecrawler. Maybe a little better than it at that price but he has a lot of advantages including the ability to move and shoot without penalty and AP-4 and str 10 more and a 6++ and reroll 1's for saves. It should probably be 140 with quad las build IMO.

Do you seriously think a QuadLas Pred for 130 is about right?

BL Falcons are 132 points. Roughly the same, but 3xS8 AP-4 shots vs *4*xS*9* AP-3 shots. The Falcon has weaker guns, shorter range, and a full quarter *fewer shots*. It does have Fly and Chapter Tactics and a transport cap of 6. No way is the QuadLas Pred worse less per model than the BL Falcon.

The Railgun HH is even worse. 150 points for heavy *1*, but at S10, and wounds of 6 cause a couple MW too. The QuadLas pred heavily outclasses it.

Compared to xenos tanks in the same class, the QuadLas pred should *not* be 30% cheaper.

Well maybe we could just charge guard the 90 point for a BS3+ battlecannon and say 60 for the BS4+ version then? Given they have the same stats as a knight battlecannon anyway.

Honestly they way they do it a good portion of your main weapon on a tank is included in the base cost but not all of it. Clearly the chassis of the russ is including some of that cost you are mainly paying for the difference in ability between weapon options. I wish they would just give you the base cost of the tank without guns. Then give you the actual value of the weapon.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:
The Knight battle cannons cost more because they're on a more resilient platform, the same reason a Lascannon costs 20 on a Guardsmen and 25 on a Space Marine.

You can't do that. Plus russ gets LC for 20 points....If you are gonna do that you have to be consistent across all armies.

No, you shouldn't do that. GW has demonstrated pretty conclusively that you can.

Not giving Chapter Tactics to all Marine vehicles (and SOBs who also got this Bul%^^%) is a direct slap in the face for no reason

Don't forget GSC!

 Ishagu wrote:
I love the aura. Has pros and cons

Auras are a crap mechanic because they make balancing characters more difficult and GW already has a tough time balancing things. It's hard to put a proper price on some thing that is situational in how many units it effects based on game size and model position and also stacks with other auras and strats.

I miss the old IC rules were characters mostly buffed one unit.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I love the aura. Has pros and cons

Auras are a crap mechanic because they make balancing characters more difficult and GW already has a tough time balancing things. It's hard to put a proper price on some thing that is situational in how many units it effects based on game size and model position and also stacks with other auras and strats.

I miss the old IC rules were characters mostly buffed one unit.

I miss PARTS of the old IC rules.

Definitely not the whole thing.

So apparently the Blood Ravens also have the Angels of Death rule, so anyone with the codex should be able to say what the new ruling includes.

The Newman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:
The Knight battle cannons cost more because they're on a more resilient platform, the same reason a Lascannon costs 20 on a Guardsmen and 25 on a Space Marine.

You can't do that. Plus russ gets LC for 20 points....If you are gonna do that you have to be consistent across all armies.

No, you shouldn't do that. GW has demonstrated pretty conclusively that you can.

Certainly - that is exactly what I mean.

The Newman wrote:


And in-context were talking about a Dd3 weapon, so the average isn't more wounds than a Primaris Marine even I wasn't specifically talking about shooting tanks with the ruddy thing.

You're not wrong, just pendantic.

Now go back and see the quoted tweet talking about T3-T6. That's Primaris Marines. You're not wrong, just cherry picking what "we" were talking about in a generalized statement.

 bullyboy wrote:
So apparently the Blood Ravens also have the Angels of Death rule, so anyone with the codex should be able to say what the new ruling includes.

Is that on Gabriel Angelos’ sheet?

 Ishagu wrote:

People who get upsets about army performance need to sort their priorities out. Are you a fluff player or a competitive player?
If you're competitive you play whatever is hot in the meta, you chase it so to speak. If you're a lore player you attach yourself to a faction. Any army can perform at a decent level, not all can win a major tournament.
If you're upset that your army can't win the LVO you have to ask yourself why? I don't care if my current favourite isn't performing at the top, I can still win 3 out of 5 games.
If you want to play the top list you'd better get used to changing faction every 3 months.

Why can't I be both? Why can't I be competitive by creating my own Meta that's also fluffy? I don't care if I win 1 out of 5, 3 out of 5, or 5 out of 5. I care if I had a fair shot at winning 5 out of 5. I know when I roll 8 2's from my four Intercessors to knock the 5 Guardsmen off an objective I had a chance to win, but random chance intervened. I know when those 20 points/3 Power Level of Guardsmen return fire, and all of them miss, they still control the objective instead of my 68 points/5 Power Level of Intercessors I was screwed by the rules and didn't have a chance to win. I know that those same Intercessors reinforced for the next battle to 10 models, 170 points and 10 Power Level can't capture the objective against 30 Termagaunts with a value of 120 points and 9 Power Level, even if they whittle the unit down to 11 models worth 44 points and 6 PL without taking a single casualty themselves.


When it comes to fluffy competitive, I know the Loyal 32 costs Guard about 180 points. a Captain, LT, and 30 Tactical Marines with zero upgrades is 527 points. I know if you want to make it fluffy - while still maintaining the Batallion Command Point Generation) and turn it into the most generic, barebones and fluffy (so box art) Demi Company with Cap, Lt, 3 Flamer/ML Tac Squads, one BP/CS 10 man Assault Squad, and one 10 model Dev Squad (4ML generic hybrid choice 965 points) or (ML, GCWA, LC, HB 968 points) - The "Cadian Demi Company" using two bare bones commanders, 3 Box Art Infantry squads - Vox, Grenade Launcher, no HW Team), a 3 model unit of Armored Sentinels (Multi-Laser, Auto Cannon, Missile Launcher) and a Heavy Weapons Team (Autocannon, Missile Launcher, Las Cannon) is 387 points. Space Marines are paying 65% of their points totals to keep Fluffy (Demi Company) and Competitive (5CP) Guard are paying 26% of their 1500 points to be fluffy (Loyal 32 with upgrades/extras you'd see in just about any Black Library book) and get their competitive 5CP.

The point I'm making here - because the Force Org Chart is standardized across all armies, they generate the same CP per detachment, not per point or Power Level. Space Marines have two thirds of their army points all but pre-selected and locked in for those 5 CP. 500 points doesn't go very far in variety when you're looking at 200+ point units, and you still need to kit out your Demi-company- 2/3 of your army being so barebones isn't going to be effective. Guard have 75% of their army they can tool up and flesh out with options to change things up and keep it new and exciting. A Space Marine army is better off taking a Loyal 32 Soup detachment - and their 5CP - for SLIGHTLY - about 2.5%) more than they pay for ONE Intercessor/Tactical with Options squad Combined Arms Detachment going from 1HQ/2Troop to Batallion 2HQ/3Troop has just exacerbated the pre-selected army issue. The Dark Angels player trying to go full Raven/Death Wing or even Raven+Death Wing is fluffy but not at all competitive. They cannot get Objective Secured, nor can they generate anywhere near the CP a Batallion does. The same can be said of the jetbikes of Saim-Hann. They can't even soup in the Loyal 32 and leave them in reserves all game long.

I'm hoping many of these "New Marine Abilities" involve re-writing so many of the generic rules to a horde/elite army neutral state. Generate CP based on Power Level, or points. Generate objective securing and the Objective Secured rule based on something similar - AND allow for fluffy but non-standard armies to play the Objective Game as easily

Breton wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

People who get upsets about army performance need to sort their priorities out. Are you a fluff player or a competitive player?
If you're competitive you play whatever is hot in the meta, you chase it so to speak. If you're a lore player you attach yourself to a faction. Any army can perform at a decent level, not all can win a major tournament.
If you're upset that your army can't win the LVO you have to ask yourself why? I don't care if my current favourite isn't performing at the top, I can still win 3 out of 5 games.
If you want to play the top list you'd better get used to changing faction every 3 months.

Why can't I be both? Why can't I be competitive by creating my own Meta that's also fluffy? I don't care if I win 1 out of 5, 3 out of 5, or 5 out of 5. I care if I had a fair shot at winning 5 out of 5. I know when I roll 8 2's from my four Intercessors to knock the 5 Guardsmen off an objective I had a chance to win, but random chance intervened. I know when those 20 points/3 Power Level of Guardsmen return fire, and all of them miss, they still control the objective instead of my 68 points/5 Power Level of Intercessors I was screwed by the rules and didn't have a chance to win. I know that those same Intercessors reinforced for the next battle to 10 models, 170 points and 10 Power Level can't capture the objective against 30 Termagaunts with a value of 120 points and 9 Power Level, even if they whittle the unit down to 11 models worth 44 points and 6 PL without taking a single casualty themselves.


When it comes to fluffy competitive, I know the Loyal 32 costs Guard about 180 points. a Captain, LT, and 30 Tactical Marines with zero upgrades is 527 points. I know if you want to make it fluffy - while still maintaining the Batallion Command Point Generation) and turn it into the most generic, barebones and fluffy (so box art) Demi Company with Cap, Lt, 3 Flamer/ML Tac Squads, one BP/CS 10 man Assault Squad, and one 10 model Dev Squad (4ML generic hybrid choice 965 points) or (ML, GCWA, LC, HB 968 points) - The "Cadian Demi Company" using two bare bones commanders, 3 Box Art Infantry squads - Vox, Grenade Launcher, no HW Team), a 3 model unit of Armored Sentinels (Multi-Laser, Auto Cannon, Missile Launcher) and a Heavy Weapons Team (Autocannon, Missile Launcher, Las Cannon) is 387 points. Space Marines are paying 65% of their points totals to keep Fluffy (Demi Company) and Competitive (5CP) Guard are paying 26% of their 1500 points to be fluffy (Loyal 32 with upgrades/extras you'd see in just about any Black Library book) and get their competitive 5CP.

The point I'm making here - because the Force Org Chart is standardized across all armies, they generate the same CP per detachment, not per point or Power Level. Space Marines have two thirds of their army points all but pre-selected and locked in for those 5 CP. 500 points doesn't go very far in variety when you're looking at 200+ point units, and you still need to kit out your Demi-company- 2/3 of your army being so barebones isn't going to be effective. Guard have 75% of their army they can tool up and flesh out with options to change things up and keep it new and exciting. A Space Marine army is better off taking a Loyal 32 Soup detachment - and their 5CP - for SLIGHTLY - about 2.5%) more than they pay for ONE Intercessor/Tactical with Options squad Combined Arms Detachment going from 1HQ/2Troop to Batallion 2HQ/3Troop has just exacerbated the pre-selected army issue. The Dark Angels player trying to go full Raven/Death Wing or even Raven+Death Wing is fluffy but not at all competitive. They cannot get Objective Secured, nor can they generate anywhere near the CP a Batallion does. The same can be said of the jetbikes of Saim-Hann. They can't even soup in the Loyal 32 and leave them in reserves all game long.

I'm hoping many of these "New Marine Abilities" involve re-writing so many of the generic rules to a horde/elite army neutral state. Generate CP based on Power Level, or points. Generate objective securing and the Objective Secured rule based on something similar - AND allow for fluffy but non-standard armies to play the Objective Game as easily

You can be both, but you can't complain about it. Dividing your priority means you don't truly excel at anything.

My general focus is on building thematic armies, but making them as powerful as possible whilst keeping to the lore and theme. I also understand fully that in a truly competitive environment my thematic armies are not 100% optimised, and I temper my expectations of their performance accordingly.

I've finished in the top 12 of 100+ man tournaments with strictly thematic, lore influenced armies and that's about as far as you can push them at a high level of competition. I find that I can usually win 3/4 out of 5 games on average. Sometimes if the mood strikes I'll build a meta list but I don't generally enjoy it as much. Other times I'll run something more fluffy.

In a casual setting I rarely if ever run the same list twice. I love my collection of models and like to make sure they all see the tabletop at some point. When building a casual list I simply make sure to have a decent number of bodies, anti tank, anti infantry, mobility, etc and every game tends to be quite fun. I've not experienced any turn 1 losses as I know the game well, and we play on good tables with terrain and LoS blocking. Frankly I don't care about the result of any casual game - you learn from each one, and I play often enough that I don't place any mental stakes on the games.

The thing is, you DO have a fair shot at winning. But you must also be mindful of your opponents. If your local meta is obsessed with chasing the top performance it does make it harder to perform well with a strictly thematic army. That's a symptom of your local scene however and it's a matter of different player priorities. You can find like minded players, and after a few games you can gauge what kinds of armies will make for the most enjoyable experience.

When I go to a club, if I'm doing a pick up game, I'll chose what faction I'm playing and bring along a KR bag full of models. After a brief word with a potential opponent I typically know exactly what level of list I have to use.

I don't experience these nightmare games people talk about. My last 10 casual games were decided on turn 5 and were narrow wins or losses with plenty of fun occurances throughout the turns, and those games involved Eldar flyer spam, Knights, Guard, Orks, Nids, mixed Chaos, FW Deathguard Dreads, etc.

Ironically I recently went to a tournament with a meta Knight + friends list and performed very badly, losing 3 out of 5 games! It's a dice game. It's supposed to be fun. I have a suspicion that the players most upset about balance don't play as often, and because they have fewer games to enjoy the obsess over them and possible ways they were wronged or the game let them down. I don't care about a loss because I'll be playing again in no time at all, enjoying my models and rolling dice.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Not giving Chapter Tactics to all Marine vehicles (and SOBs who also got this Bul%^^%) is a direct slap in the face for no reason

Don't forget GSC!

Good point - no idea why they do this after taking all that time and effort to make sure Guard, Eldar etc get CT that work for their vehicles.

 Ishagu wrote:


You can be both, but you can't complain about it. Dividing your priority means you don't truly excel at anything.

This is a false dichotomy. There is no inherent fluffy/competitive points/rules trade-off, a point is a point is a point. Or it should be. Rewarding Fluffy lists is the entire reason things like Batallion/Brigade/Lion's Blade/Gladius/etc exist(ed), thus not only can I complain, I should. I can make a pretty fluffy and competitive Knights list at 1500-2000 points with three/four different Knight models that get 6 CP for their formation. Fluffy and Competitive need not and should not be mutually exclusive. Ergo - the Beta Bolter Rule: a bandaid on the arterial hemorrhage spray that is balancing your game on points, then declaring victory on model count.

Does anybody know what are the rules for Angels of Death?

I'd like to discuss how viable would be to give marines (infantry only) the ability of rerolling armour save rolls of 1. (Not invulns). Perhaps it would make SS less of an autotake. Of course perhaps a point adjustment would be in order.

 Kithail wrote:
I'd like to discuss how viable would be to give marines (infantry only) the ability of rerolling armour save rolls of 1. (Not invulns). Perhaps it would make SS less of an autotake. Of course perhaps a point adjustment would be in order.

No pls! No more rerolls!

 Ishagu wrote:


Honestly I think the problem might be your ability as a player. I don't have the problems you describe. Consider the difference between us to be ability.

And there it is. "Learn to play", if packaged in a slightly less odious manner.

Imperial Guard certainly seem capable of making fluffy lists that are also competetive. Chaos lists can be fluffy and competetive. Genestealer Cults can be fluffy and competetive. Why on Earth would you conclude that it is unreasonable for Space Marine players to complain that they cannot? LIke, in what reality does that argument make an iota of sense?

When people complain that the only way to be competetive with their army is to play it in a way that is greatly divergent from the way the background tells us the army ought to play like, responding with "l2p" or a variation thereof is just a donkeycave move.

So this rule angels of death can't be only bolter discipline+morale reroll, because it will be common for all astartes and not only bolter guys, right?? . I hope is something like reduce damage done to units with this rule by 1 to a minimum of 1 or something that really boosts survivability of astartes.

Will the boys still be able to reroll Battle Shock tests?

 Kithail wrote:
I'd like to discuss how viable would be to give marines (infantry only) the ability of rerolling armour save rolls of 1. (Not invulns). Perhaps it would make SS less of an autotake. Of course perhaps a point adjustment would be in order.

Aside from, as previously mentioned, the game not needing more rerolls, a reroll of 1 for armor saves is deceptively powerful. It doesn't seem like a lot, but a reroll is always more powerful when the base stat is higher.

Lets use a standard example. 30 slugga boys somehow manage to charge into a squad of tacticals, who don't get overwatch for some reason and automaticly make it into melee and everyone gets to attack. 120 attacks, 3+ WS (2/3 to hit) Str 4 vs T 4 (1/2 to wound), 3+ save without reroll (1/3 to save) vs with (2/9 to save)

This takes you from 13.3R average wounds, which wipes the squad with interest, to 8.8R. That is a third of damage lost. While the rest of the marines run from morale, this is best case scenario for the Orks. Try something more fair:

20 choppa boys with a nob vs tactical squad with a sergeant and a heavy bolter. Giving the orks an advantage we start them at 12 inches and let them walk up 6 (representing Evil Sunz), shoot their sluggers and assault (assuming they make a 6 inch charge, which is a good chance). 20 sluggas (20*1/3*1/2*2/9) with dakkax3 (9+20*1/9*1/2*2/9) does a whole .9877 wounds (for sanity's sake will just round that up to 1). One dead marine! then overwatch....

14 bolters, 1 bolt pistol, and 1 heavy bolter. the 15 bolt rounds does 1.042 wounds (15*1/6*1/2*5/6) and the heavy bolter (.3R wounds). Good chance of one dead ork.

In melee, the 19 boys lose their green tide ability. Assuming each boy gets in range to attack, the throw out just throw out 54 (vs 76 if they'd gotten in unscathed) with (54*2/3*1/2*2/9) plus the nob for 4 attacks at str 5 (+4*2/3*2/3*2/9) for 4.395 wounds.

The 4 tac and sarge strike back (6*2/3*1/2*5/6) for 1.66R

In total that's 2.7 wounds by the marines, and 5.3827 wounds by the Orks, with a 25% of losing someone from morale (assuming 5 dead models).

That still sounds pretty in the Boyz's favor, but here's the thing. As currently? the boyz would have done 7.703 wounds, and the marines would have only done 2~ wounds back, likely resulting in the rest of the marine squad running.

We're taking about the differences between a squad only half dead to completely routed, and this is with giving the ork boyz almost every advantage. If the marines got to shoot first (or maybe even charged themselves)? if the boyz were put further away? If I had given the marines a combi flamer? if positioning mean some of the boys didn't get to attack? If the orks failed to charge? If the marines had a chapter tactic? they would have come out better.

And this is not the worst problem. Because what happens if those marines get a +1 to their armor because of cover? They got from a 1/6 chance to fail a save to 1/36. You effectively become immune to small arms fire.

 Kithail wrote:
I'd like to discuss how viable would be to give marines (infantry only) the ability of rerolling armour save rolls of 1. (Not invulns). Perhaps it would make SS less of an autotake. Of course perhaps a point adjustment would be in order.

People heavily dislike rerolls - apparently because spending more time playing the game you enjoy the hobby for is a bad thing - even though rerolls add more "granularity" as people like to call it - on the D6. A reroll of X adds less than a pip so they can break down the 3+ a little further than just going to 2+ (etcetera) which would allow a little more durability/functionality variety between various armies. That said, a reroll of 1 on armor saves when you have -X AP instead of the APX of yore were AP5 meant 4+ could save on a 4, and 5+ just didn't get to roll wouldn't be all that effective at your stated goal. Marines don't take the Storm Shield for AP -0 spam, they take it for the -3 Plasma.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lonewolf81 wrote:
So this rule angels of death can't be only bolter discipline+morale reroll, because it will be common for all astartes and not only bolter guys, right?? . I hope is something like reduce damage done to units with this rule by 1 to a minimum of 1 or something that really boosts survivability of astartes.

Sure it can, they frequently give rules to units that don't need/can't use them. At one point chaplains were fearless and never rolled Morale, but they could still reroll it if they failed. That is, if I remember right.

If the half-assed Genestealer bodybuilders can have a -1 to damage rule, I'm sure Astartes could get it too.
Not gonna happen though.

I'd rather use different dice than reroll huge piles of D6. Also, the interactions with minus to hit are horrible.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd rather use different dice than reroll huge piles of D6. Also, the interactions with minus to hit are horrible.

So would I, especially given how many factions there are now that need their own tier on that die, but GW hasn't used different sided dice since 2nd Edition, and probably never will again. Its a valid discussion point, but not so much as a line in the sand.

D8 would give just enough granularity to work with. I know Martel likes the D10 because of the percentages with it, but D8 would be easier to work from.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
D8 would give just enough granularity to work with. I know Martel likes the D10 because of the percentages with it, but D8 would be easier to work from.

How many factions are there? Some would double up on various armor saves but not attack rolls, or vice versa, for variety but you'll also have elites and chaff within those armies who will need their own niche on the die. Remember whatever size die you land on, two options are all but removed for auto-fail and auto-success - so a D8 only has "granularity" for 6 variations of success/failure. Are 6 results enough to differentiate between Grots to Greater Daemons with Guardsmen, Gaunts, Sisters, Marines, Custodes, Eldar, Terminators, Tanks, Speeders, Knights, and so on?

And still doesn't resolve GW avoiding the Satanic and hard to find Dungeons and Dragons dice like the plague since the year 2000.

6 isn't an auto pass on saves.

Is rare though.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
6 isn't an auto pass on saves.

There is no autopass on armor saves, but there is/has been on other things. Remember Double 1's for insane courage? Double 6 Unstoppable Force Perils? The Current SvT chart has a 6 auto-pass to wound (unless a rule provides a negative to-wound mod, which is rare if it exists at all) Keep in mind, the new D(X) system has to survive multiple editions and revisions which will recycle multiple ideas and rules of the past- like some of the things they came up with a system to roll a 7+ on a D6 for.

Breton wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
D8 would give just enough granularity to work with. I know Martel likes the D10 because of the percentages with it, but D8 would be easier to work from.

How many factions are there? Some would double up on various armor saves but not attack rolls, or vice versa, for variety but you'll also have elites and chaff within those armies who will need their own niche on the die. Remember whatever size die you land on, two options are all but removed for auto-fail and auto-success - so a D8 only has "granularity" for 6 variations of success/failure. Are 6 results enough to differentiate between Grots to Greater Daemons with Guardsmen, Gaunts, Sisters, Marines, Custodes, Eldar, Terminators, Tanks, Speeders, Knights, and so on?

And still doesn't resolve GW avoiding the Satanic and hard to find Dungeons and Dragons dice like the plague since the year 2000.

Moreso than now.

Also niche dice have been easier to find nowadays. With the internet there's honestly 0 excuses, especially when they're almost the same cost.

Did anyone buy the new WD with Blood Ravens inside? I was told the Angels of Death rule is in their datasheet? No clue if true, haven't seen it myself.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
D8 would give just enough granularity to work with. I know Martel likes the D10 because of the percentages with it, but D8 would be easier to work from.

How many factions are there? Some would double up on various armor saves but not attack rolls, or vice versa, for variety but you'll also have elites and chaff within those armies who will need their own niche on the die. Remember whatever size die you land on, two options are all but removed for auto-fail and auto-success - so a D8 only has "granularity" for 6 variations of success/failure. Are 6 results enough to differentiate between Grots to Greater Daemons with Guardsmen, Gaunts, Sisters, Marines, Custodes, Eldar, Terminators, Tanks, Speeders, Knights, and so on?

And still doesn't resolve GW avoiding the Satanic and hard to find Dungeons and Dragons dice like the plague since the year 2000.

Moreso than now.

Also niche dice have been easier to find nowadays. With the internet there's honestly 0 excuses, especially when they're almost the same cost.

Definitely not the same cost.
I can go to my local dollar store and get 10d6 for $1.

 bullyboy wrote:
Did anyone buy the new WD with Blood Ravens inside? I was told the Angels of Death rule is in their datasheet? No clue if true, haven't seen it myself.

He does not have Angels of Death. He has regular ATSKNF.

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
D8 would give just enough granularity to work with. I know Martel likes the D10 because of the percentages with it, but D8 would be easier to work from.

How many factions are there? Some would double up on various armor saves but not attack rolls, or vice versa, for variety but you'll also have elites and chaff within those armies who will need their own niche on the die. Remember whatever size die you land on, two options are all but removed for auto-fail and auto-success - so a D8 only has "granularity" for 6 variations of success/failure. Are 6 results enough to differentiate between Grots to Greater Daemons with Guardsmen, Gaunts, Sisters, Marines, Custodes, Eldar, Terminators, Tanks, Speeders, Knights, and so on?

And still doesn't resolve GW avoiding the Satanic and hard to find Dungeons and Dragons dice like the plague since the year 2000.

Moreso than now.

Also niche dice have been easier to find nowadays. With the internet there's honestly 0 excuses, especially when they're almost the same cost.

Definitely not the same cost.
I can go to my local dollar store and get 10d6 for $1.

Ah yes, dollar store dice, how could I forget? However, the cost really isn't that far off.
https://www.amazon.com/MagiDeal-10pieces-Polyhedral-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/B076P6SHWP/ref=mp_s_a_1_16?keywords=d8+dice&qid=1563727611&s=gateway&sprefix=d8&sr=8-16
That's a 10 pack for $4. You might think 4× the cost is unreasonable, but do you need more than 40-50 of them anyway? Not really.

Breton wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
I'd like to discuss how viable would be to give marines (infantry only) the ability of rerolling armour save rolls of 1. (Not invulns). Perhaps it would make SS less of an autotake. Of course perhaps a point adjustment would be in order.

People heavily dislike rerolls - apparently because spending more time playing the game you enjoy the hobby for is a bad thing - even though rerolls add more "granularity" as people like to call it - on the D6.

Rolling dice is not really the thing I like about 40k. If it was, I'd just get a bucket and throw dice in it. Even my toddler got tired of that pretty quick. Its just tedious and time consuming. Honestly the stupid amount of time I was spending dice rolling is one of the reasons I've been so happy playing kill team instead of regular 40k. I still enjoyed 8th edition, but after the second game running some bolter aggressors I was ready to switch to a statistic app.

 argonak wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
I'd like to discuss how viable would be to give marines (infantry only) the ability of rerolling armour save rolls of 1. (Not invulns). Perhaps it would make SS less of an autotake. Of course perhaps a point adjustment would be in order.

People heavily dislike rerolls - apparently because spending more time playing the game you enjoy the hobby for is a bad thing - even though rerolls add more "granularity" as people like to call it - on the D6.

Rolling dice is not really the thing I like about 40k. If it was, I'd just get a bucket and throw dice in it. Even my toddler got tired of that pretty quick. Its just tedious and time consuming. Honestly the stupid amount of time I was spending dice rolling is one of the reasons I've been so happy playing kill team instead of regular 40k. I still enjoyed 8th edition, but after the second game running some bolter aggressors I was ready to switch to a statistic app.

a statistic ap is silly. because the point of throwing dice is that sure there's a statistical window but sometimes luck goes odd. and that can make the game exciting

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Moreso than now.

Also niche dice have been easier to find nowadays. With the internet there's honestly 0 excuses, especially when they're almost the same cost.

Other than the residual from the Satanic Dungeons and Dragons thing Parents and Grandparents with the wallets would have to get over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 argonak wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
I'd like to discuss how viable would be to give marines (infantry only) the ability of rerolling armour save rolls of 1. (Not invulns). Perhaps it would make SS less of an autotake. Of course perhaps a point adjustment would be in order.

People heavily dislike rerolls - apparently because spending more time playing the game you enjoy the hobby for is a bad thing - even though rerolls add more "granularity" as people like to call it - on the D6.

Rolling dice is not really the thing I like about 40k. If it was, I'd just get a bucket and throw dice in it. Even my toddler got tired of that pretty quick. Its just tedious and time consuming. Honestly the stupid amount of time I was spending dice rolling is one of the reasons I've been so happy playing kill team instead of regular 40k. I still enjoyed 8th edition, but after the second game running some bolter aggressors I was ready to switch to a statistic app.

a statistic ap is silly. because the point of throwing dice is that sure there's a statistical window but sometimes luck goes odd. and that can make the game exciting

A statistic app can also randomize. But I don't see people talking about that time you hit calculate on your phone, and killed that Greater Demon when the behind the scenes reroll gave you that last wound you needed nearly as often as when you do it with the drama of a dice roll. There's also a point where you should just put the models away and get a game of Total War or Dawn of War and let the computer do the moving for you too.

I really wish GW would just drop the kits for these new marines. I want to have them built and painted for when this new rule pops up

 fraser1191 wrote:
I really wish GW would just drop the kits for these new marines. I want to have them built and painted for when this new rule pops up

The new Kits will spoil the new codex. But yeah, I'd like to get them painted up as well. I'm curious what, if anything the Infiltrators will get for options as we already have Eliminators.

Breton wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I really wish GW would just drop the kits for these new marines. I want to have them built and painted for when this new rule pops up

The new Kits will spoil the new codex. But yeah, I'd like to get them painted up as well. I'm curious what, if anything the Infiltrators will get for options as we already have Eliminators.

I'm hoping infiltrators get shotguns to be honest. But ones with good damage potential and can target things beyond infantry. I'd say that's the biggest problem with Primaris they're super rigid and have basically S4 for most of their units. Hopefully the shotguns are S5, S6 at half range or something. Ideally wounding T3 infantry on 2

What are the new units going to be?

Valrak just shared this rumour. He was sent the info.

"Marines will gain a rule included in the new Angel of Death rule, SM will gain +1A during the first fight phase or something like that. But that's not all, we have something like the Deathwatch Doctrine! At the start of each turn/round, we can choose one, and one of them is awesome, a bonus of -1 to AP in the shooting or fighting phase"

Those are not solutions to current problems.

Martel732 wrote:
Those are not solutions to current problems.

Until we've seen the next codex you can't claim that anything is or isn't a solution to anything.

Clearly if this is true then we're looking at substantial changes to the book.

I can claim those particular abilities, if accurate, solve nothing. If there are other changes, great.

I hope you can choose based on turn as opposed to round so you can be more flexible with your abilities. But I'm sure everyone is already thinking "if I choose the ap for shooting my already meh melee will continue to be meh"

I do kinda want to side with Martel on this one. Improving Marine melee is great and all, but unless we are giving them the option of melee weapons, where is the benefit of 2 attacks at S4 AP1 D1 per model?

Given their obvious focus towards ranged attacking, putting them into melee seems counter intuitive. Unless we are thinking Reivers here, in which case they could do some really good work with this.

Melee is not a super great plan for starters. I have never found myself wishing for some random AP on punches. I desperately want to surrender fewer points on my opponent's shooting phase.

Short of either points reductions or a variation of the red corsairs +1CP for ever tactical or intercessors squad which would see tgem chosen for imperium soup lists.
To be worth while to marines, marines need some new strategums.
Outside of the snowflake chapters the marine strategums aren't worth the tax units.

Compared to the crap GSC gets to do, BA strats aren't worthwhile either. Except for the smash capt nonsense, which I wish they would remove. It's just dumb to the max.

And suddenly Veteran Intercessors have 4 attacks at AP-1
Or 40 shots at 30“ range with AP-2

These are just two basic implications if these prove to be true.

Veteran Sargeant with 5 power fist attacks, he's almost a 1 man terminator squad. I think these will help, they will shake up casual play but I doubt it will break the meta

 Ishagu wrote:
And suddenly Veteran Intercessors have 4 attacks at AP-1
Or 40 shots at 30“ range with AP-2

These are just two basic implications if these prove to be true.

Must be nice to have vet intercessors in the first place.

I could see this become pretty gnarly on Salamander Intercessors with flamers and boltguns.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And suddenly Veteran Intercessors have 4 attacks at AP-1
Or 40 shots at 30“ range with AP-2

These are just two basic implications if these prove to be true.

Must be nice to have vet intercessors in the first place.

If the rumor pans out to be true they will be a fearsome and affordable troop unit with significant output. Two sgts with power fists will gave the same output as a full squad of Terminators.
Keep in mind that these rumors are for the main Astartes codex. We don't know if it will be Primaris focused or if it will involve chapters like the BA, DA and SW

Martel732 wrote:
Those are not solutions to current problems.

Actually - that would be amazing. I guess it's not what I want...durability. But being more killy also has a lot of benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
Valrak just shared this rumour. He was sent the info.

"Marines will gain a rule included in the new Angel of Death rule, SM will gain +1A during the first fight phase or something like that. But that's not all, we have something like the Deathwatch Doctrine! At the start of each turn/round, we can choose one, and one of them is awesome, a bonus of -1 to AP in the shooting or fighting phase"

Just thinking how awesome that will be with devs with rockets. Can get ap-3 on missle shots or ap-1 on frags. Oh and vet intercessors with 40 ap-2 shots? Ouch. Go on an spam your invo saves people...dont care anymore! HAHA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And suddenly Veteran Intercessors have 4 attacks at AP-1
Or 40 shots at 30“ range with AP-2

These are just two basic implications if these prove to be true.

Must be nice to have vet intercessors in the first place.

Well you do get 5+FNP intercessors. Probably better than my intercessors to be honest. Have you thought about just asking your opponents to use the formation? Its not like it would be broken on BA. It's just some stupid fluff consideration why they don't get it.

I can make a small part of my list functional. More babysitters, yay.

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And suddenly Veteran Intercessors have 4 attacks at AP-1
Or 40 shots at 30“ range with AP-2

These are just two basic implications if these prove to be true.

Must be nice to have vet intercessors in the first place.

If the rumor pans out to be true they will be a fearsome and affordable troop unit with significant output. Two sgts with power fists will gave the same output as a full squad of Terminators.
Keep in mind that these rumors are for the main Astartes codex. We don't know if it will be Primaris focused or if it will involve chapters like the BA, DA and SW

This is the exact problem though it's a typical GW answer to a problem great my intercessors for 180 points can get to the same amount of CC attacks as 150 points of guard.
But it doesn't solve the issue of 8th still being an quantity over quality edition.

I'd still much rather have:

A) D2 counts as D1 for all astartes. (Plague marines need love, too)

B) Astartes ignore the first -1 to hit generated from an opponent's ability.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd still much rather have:

A) D2 counts as D1 for all astartes. (Plague marines need love, too)

B) Astartes ignore the first -1 to hit generated from an opponent's ability.

Defense is always better than offense in 40k. It's always been that way.

Yeah, but I think the ignoring -1 to hit is important for an elite army. Marines can't afford to miss.

What about -1 AP Weapons count as AP 0 against astartes?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What about -1 AP Weapons count as AP 0 against astartes?

That's a nice buff, but doesn't have the same impact of changing D2 to D1. Dam2 and DamD3 commonality almost singlehandedly invalidates primaris competitively, and even casually depending on the situation.

So would the D2 - D1 debuff affect ALL astartes units, or just troops? Because I can see this getting abused by making Aggressors like blocking units. Then again, a squad of aggressors surrounding Gman would be an ugly castle...

All astartes. Aggressors current cost is unjustifiable without such a rule. At least, to me. It wouldn't save them form D3 weapons that rolled a "3", either. IG would still have their way with them, imo. I think current marines are so far from anything that resembles abuse that such a change is worth trying at least.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So would the D2 - D1 debuff affect ALL astartes units, or just troops? Because I can see this getting abused by making Aggressors like blocking units. Then again, a squad of aggressors surrounding Gman would be an ugly castle...

Ehhh - plenty of units a lot cheaper than aggressors that are already tougher than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
All astartes. Aggressors current cost is unjustifiable without such a rule. At least, to me. It wouldn't save them form D3 weapons that rolled a "3", either. IG would still have their way with them, imo. I think current marines are so far from anything that resembles abuse that such a change is worth trying at least.

Personally I think Gravis should have 3 wounds if we were gonna give them any kind of change.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd still much rather have:

A) D2 counts as D1 for all astartes. (Plague marines need love, too)

B) Astartes ignore the first -1 to hit generated from an opponent's ability.

I actually agree with the first one, but I'd probably go further and just say all damage is reduced by 1 to a minimum of 1, including against Vehicles.

I don't really agree with that second one. I think the better solution is for all chapter master and equivalent auras be all hits, not just failed ones. It severely reduces the impact of -1 to hit factions without outright ignoring the ability altogether.

Like it or not, this is the aura army after all.

Wow, I don't even want to think about Leviathans walking around with the -1 to all damage buff.

To be honest, the problem with Intercessors is the cost, not the survivability. I would much prefer cheaper chaff than harder to kill chaff. I think the D2-D1 would go well on Elite level infantry and vehicles. Oh gawd a full squad of Hellblasters with this...

Nono. The vehicles dont get it.

Im trying to reduce dependence on auras. Theyre terrible.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, I don't even want to think about Leviathans walking around with the -1 to all damage buff.

To be honest, the problem with Intercessors is the cost, not the survivability. I would much prefer cheaper chaff than harder to kill chaff. I think the D2-D1 would go well on Elite level infantry and vehicles. Oh gawd a full squad of Hellblasters with this...

"To be honest, the problem with Intercessors is the cost, not the survivability."
I get what you are saying but durability per point is what survivability really means and increasing stats and decreasing cost have the exact same effect here. Except lowering cost is even more effective because better stats can be ignored.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, I don't even want to think about Leviathans walking around with the -1 to all damage buff.

To be honest, the problem with Intercessors is the cost, not the survivability. I would much prefer cheaper chaff than harder to kill chaff. I think the D2-D1 would go well on Elite level infantry and vehicles. Oh gawd a full squad of Hellblasters with this...

Making them cheaper would fix it, but then they don't feel like marines anymore, letalone Primaris marines. Turning everybody into chaff/horde is not a good solution.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, I don't even want to think about Leviathans walking around with the -1 to all damage buff.

To be honest, the problem with Intercessors is the cost, not the survivability. I would much prefer cheaper chaff than harder to kill chaff. I think the D2-D1 would go well on Elite level infantry and vehicles. Oh gawd a full squad of Hellblasters with this...

Making them cheaper would fix it, but then they don't feel like marines anymore, letalone Primaris marines. Turning everybody into chaff/horde is not a good solution.

Right, but for every balance, you have to take into account FW units. We could increase the survivability of all Primaris, but then you risk making FW units even more Meta auto-take. I still advocate for scalpel level changes, not thunder hammer.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, I don't even want to think about Leviathans walking around with the -1 to all damage buff.

To be honest, the problem with Intercessors is the cost, not the survivability. I would much prefer cheaper chaff than harder to kill chaff. I think the D2-D1 would go well on Elite level infantry and vehicles. Oh gawd a full squad of Hellblasters with this...

Making them cheaper would fix it, but then they don't feel like marines anymore, letalone Primaris marines. Turning everybody into chaff/horde is not a good solution.

Right, but for every balance, you have to take into account FW units. We could increase the survivability of all Primaris, but then you risk making FW units even more Meta auto-take. I still advocate for scalpel level changes, not thunder hammer.

Hard to scalpel away a 20-30% deficiency. That is where most marine units stand. Intercessors are one of the better units we got actually. They are one of the few that are only 10-15% overcosted.

DA are sub 40% win rate. Until very recently, BA were mid 30% win rate. Still lurking at 40%. Scalpel is fine, but its gonna take a lot of cuts.

Martel732 wrote:
DA are sub 40% win rate. Until very recently, BA were mid 30% win rate. Still lurking at 40%. Scalpel is fine, but its gonna take a lot of cuts.

I guess 12 cuts with the preclusion of adding to the number of cuts is better than one hammer swing that added 50 new cuts needed.

See:EVERY FAQ EVER.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, I don't even want to think about Leviathans walking around with the -1 to all damage buff.

To be honest, the problem with Intercessors is the cost, not the survivability. I would much prefer cheaper chaff than harder to kill chaff. I think the D2-D1 would go well on Elite level infantry and vehicles. Oh gawd a full squad of Hellblasters with this...

Making them cheaper would fix it, but then they don't feel like marines anymore, letalone Primaris marines. Turning everybody into chaff/horde is not a good solution.

Right, but for every balance, you have to take into account FW units. We could increase the survivability of all Primaris, but then you risk making FW units even more Meta auto-take. I still advocate for scalpel level changes, not thunder hammer.

I get the concern, but I think the approach needs to be to fix the bulk of units that all have essentially the same problem, and then deal with edge cases like FW dreads on their own. Otherwise we just end up with "You can't fix Marine infantry because it might break these 2 units." Just don't give the buff to those units, or nerf them in some other way. Marines need to be back on the table.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, I don't even want to think about Leviathans walking around with the -1 to all damage buff.

To be honest, the problem with Intercessors is the cost, not the survivability. I would much prefer cheaper chaff than harder to kill chaff. I think the D2-D1 would go well on Elite level infantry and vehicles. Oh gawd a full squad of Hellblasters with this...

Making them cheaper would fix it, but then they don't feel like marines anymore, letalone Primaris marines. Turning everybody into chaff/horde is not a good solution.

Right, but for every balance, you have to take into account FW units. We could increase the survivability of all Primaris, but then you risk making FW units even more Meta auto-take. I still advocate for scalpel level changes, not thunder hammer.

I get the concern, but I think the approach needs to be to fix the bulk of units that all have essentially the same problem, and then deal with edge cases like FW dreads on their own. Otherwise we just end up with "You can't fix Marine infantry because it might break these 2 units." Just don't give the buff to those units, or nerf them in some other way. Marines need to be back on the table.

The reduction of damage down to one would only help numarines and other 2+w units though. It would be another spit in the face to regular marine collectors. I dont think that is what the community needs... A buff thet helps both primaris and regulars would be more appreciated.

Also bring in a machete or something, scalpel is not enough.

My change was directed to the future. Old marines get no support aimed at them. Theyd still ignore the first -1 to hit.

Gitdakka wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, I don't even want to think about Leviathans walking around with the -1 to all damage buff.

To be honest, the problem with Intercessors is the cost, not the survivability. I would much prefer cheaper chaff than harder to kill chaff. I think the D2-D1 would go well on Elite level infantry and vehicles. Oh gawd a full squad of Hellblasters with this...

Making them cheaper would fix it, but then they don't feel like marines anymore, letalone Primaris marines. Turning everybody into chaff/horde is not a good solution.

Right, but for every balance, you have to take into account FW units. We could increase the survivability of all Primaris, but then you risk making FW units even more Meta auto-take. I still advocate for scalpel level changes, not thunder hammer.

I get the concern, but I think the approach needs to be to fix the bulk of units that all have essentially the same problem, and then deal with edge cases like FW dreads on their own. Otherwise we just end up with "You can't fix Marine infantry because it might break these 2 units." Just don't give the buff to those units, or nerf them in some other way. Marines need to be back on the table.

The reduction of damage down to one would only help numarines and other 2+w units though. It would be another spit in the face to regular marine collectors. I dont think that is what the community needs... A buff thet helps both primaris and regulars would be more appreciated.

Also bring in a machete or something, scalpel is not enough.

You know shortmarines are in their way to extinction, right?
It would still help Terminators, though.

DanielFM wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, I don't even want to think about Leviathans walking around with the -1 to all damage buff.

To be honest, the problem with Intercessors is the cost, not the survivability. I would much prefer cheaper chaff than harder to kill chaff. I think the D2-D1 would go well on Elite level infantry and vehicles. Oh gawd a full squad of Hellblasters with this...

Making them cheaper would fix it, but then they don't feel like marines anymore, letalone Primaris marines. Turning everybody into chaff/horde is not a good solution.

Right, but for every balance, you have to take into account FW units. We could increase the survivability of all Primaris, but then you risk making FW units even more Meta auto-take. I still advocate for scalpel level changes, not thunder hammer.

I get the concern, but I think the approach needs to be to fix the bulk of units that all have essentially the same problem, and then deal with edge cases like FW dreads on their own. Otherwise we just end up with "You can't fix Marine infantry because it might break these 2 units." Just don't give the buff to those units, or nerf them in some other way. Marines need to be back on the table.

The reduction of damage down to one would only help numarines and other 2+w units though. It would be another spit in the face to regular marine collectors. I dont think that is what the community needs... A buff thet helps both primaris and regulars would be more appreciated.

Also bring in a machete or something, scalpel is not enough.

You know shortmarines are in their way to extinction, right?
It would still help Terminators, though.

They just released a brand new kit of Chaos shortmarines, so no, they are not. Perhaps for loyalists yes, but not for everyone. Rubrics and Plague Marines are also fairly new, and we're expecting new Noise Marines and Berzerkers when those factions get their own books. Of course, they could phase out shortmarines for loyalists and never fix Chaos Marines at all.

Chaos would get their own stuff.

Martel732 wrote:
My change was directed to the future. Old marines get no support aimed at them. Theyd still ignore the first -1 to hit.

yeah they only have half the store dedicated to them and their entire range is complete - its not like they are missing anything or are likely to not be sold.

I really don't understand GW's fascination with marines, either. So many kits, and most of them are crap on the tabletop.

Martel732 wrote:
I really don't understand GW's fascination with marines, either. So many kits, and most of them are crap on the tabletop.

Rules need adjustment - no argument but they will stick around for sure - its just they have completed the range and starting a new one - Primaris

We marine players get so much more than anyone else - 2 complete Imperium Subfactions - Marines and Primaris Marines, plus the sub-sub factions often have larger model ranges than actual full factions.

Oh and then just to make sure there is an entire extra massive Marine range in 30k - much of which can be used in 40k.

They can stick around and get minimal rule support.

Martel732 wrote:
I really don't understand GW's fascination with marines, either. So many kits, and most of them are crap on the tabletop.

ok, say it with me.

space marines make up 60% of GW sales and you don't understand why GW makes so many?

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I really don't understand GW's fascination with marines, either. So many kits, and most of them are crap on the tabletop.

ok, say it with me.

space marines make up 60% of GW sales and you don't understand why GW makes so many?

Imagine what percentage they'd make up if the rules were good!

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I really don't understand GW's fascination with marines, either. So many kits, and most of them are crap on the tabletop.

ok, say it with me.

space marines make up 60% of GW sales and you don't understand why GW makes so many?

Imagine what percentage they'd make up if the rules were good!

Probably 65-70% my reasoning for this is people play the armies they love and then a small amount of players are meta chasers

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I really don't understand GW's fascination with marines, either. So many kits, and most of them are crap on the tabletop.

ok, say it with me.

space marines make up 60% of GW sales and you don't understand why GW makes so many?

Imagine what percentage they'd make up if the rules were good!

Probably 65-70% my reasoning for this is people play the armies they love and then a small amount of players are meta chasers

I think a lot of people are in my position: i'm playing my Dark Eldar while I wait for marines to get fixed. Once they do, i'll go out and buy 3,000+ points of them. And then I have friends who aren't playing at all until they get fixed. There's thousands of dollar worth of marines waiting to be scooped up in my direct game group alone :(

-1 damage from all weapons would also have the welcome effect of impacting volume of fire weapons more harshly than single-shot ones. Weapon A doing 2 damage with 2 shots would have a larger decrease than weapon B doing 4 damage with 1 shot since A would get double-dip nerfed.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I really don't understand GW's fascination with marines, either. So many kits, and most of them are crap on the tabletop.

ok, say it with me.

space marines make up 60% of GW sales and you don't understand why GW makes so many?

Imagine what percentage they'd make up if the rules were good!

Depends on how big the flavour of the month meta chasing crowd is.

My guess is that it's not even big enough to care about since it's almost always fueled by mini swaps, borrowhammer, or used models.

Lemondish wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I really don't understand GW's fascination with marines, either. So many kits, and most of them are crap on the tabletop.

ok, say it with me.

space marines make up 60% of GW sales and you don't understand why GW makes so many?

Imagine what percentage they'd make up if the rules were good!

Depends on how big the flavour of the month meta chasing crowd is.

My guess is that it's not even big enough to care about since it's almost always fueled by mini swaps, borrowhammer, or used models.

How about the other sorts of players I mentioned? A good 75% of people I used to play with in 5th would like to play again, but are only interested if Marines become decent.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
-1 damage from all weapons would also have the welcome effect of impacting volume of fire weapons more harshly than single-shot ones. Weapon A doing 2 damage with 2 shots would have a larger decrease than weapon B doing 4 damage with 1 shot since A would get double-dip nerfed.

Which is probably a good thing, as generally volume of fire is much better than single shot heavy weapons with how this edition works and how those weapons are costed.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I really don't understand GW's fascination with marines, either. So many kits, and most of them are crap on the tabletop.

ok, say it with me.

space marines make up 60% of GW sales and you don't understand why GW makes so many?

Imagine what percentage they'd make up if the rules were good!

Depends on how big the flavour of the month meta chasing crowd is.

My guess is that it's not even big enough to care about since it's almost always fueled by mini swaps, borrowhammer, or used models.

How about the other sorts of players I mentioned? A good 75% of people I used to play with in 5th would like to play again, but are only interested if Marines become decent.

Also, are GW making so many marines because they're 60% of GW' sales, or are marines 60% of GW's sales because they make so many marines?

ERJAK wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I really don't understand GW's fascination with marines, either. So many kits, and most of them are crap on the tabletop.

ok, say it with me.

space marines make up 60% of GW sales and you don't understand why GW makes so many?

Imagine what percentage they'd make up if the rules were good!

Depends on how big the flavour of the month meta chasing crowd is.

My guess is that it's not even big enough to care about since it's almost always fueled by mini swaps, borrowhammer, or used models.

How about the other sorts of players I mentioned? A good 75% of people I used to play with in 5th would like to play again, but are only interested if Marines become decent.

Also, are GW making so many marines because they're 60% of GW' sales, or are marines 60% of GW's sales because they make so many marines?

Mostly the former. They're the classic heroic human archetype, which is always the most popular faction in any game - regardless of whether it's pushed harder or not.

Humans are the most popular race in WoW. Marines are the most popular faction in 40k.

 fraser1191 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I really wish GW would just drop the kits for these new marines. I want to have them built and painted for when this new rule pops up

The new Kits will spoil the new codex. But yeah, I'd like to get them painted up as well. I'm curious what, if anything the Infiltrators will get for options as we already have Eliminators.

I'm hoping infiltrators get shotguns to be honest. But ones with good damage potential and can target things beyond infantry. I'd say that's the biggest problem with Primaris they're super rigid and have basically S4 for most of their units. Hopefully the shotguns are S5, S6 at half range or something. Ideally wounding T3 infantry on 2

It's going to be weird.. Bolter+Combat Knife/Chainsword will be too similar to Reivers - but fit pretty well in the Crusader Initiate+Neophyte (Intercessor+Infiltrator or Intercessor+Reiver) squad - while Eliminators already have the sniper rifles, making them Scout Bikes or Land Speeder Storm crews would be one hell of a new kit. I already suspect the Suppressors will have a two handed CCW/Thunderhammer type of choice for their other option - they're running out of Jet Pack Primaris to compete with Assault/VV Squads - unless they allow Grapnel+Grav Chute Reivers to have the Jump rules. Shotgun is likely, and the shotgun will suck. Making them all grenadiers with non-1 Grenade per turn weapons i.e. a Grenade Launcher with Assault or Rapid Fire instead of the Grenade type - and multiple different grenade ammo - plasma + Frag, or Melta darts + Shrapnel (to get new stat lines) wouldn't be bad depending on points differential to their original bolt gun. Too expensive or too cheap would both be bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Those are not solutions to current problems.

Until we've seen the next codex you can't claim that anything is or isn't a solution to anything.

Clearly if this is true then we're looking at substantial changes to the book.

Pointing out we should wait and see what is on the full paper before deciding didn't end well for me on the Executioner. I wish you the best of luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And suddenly Veteran Intercessors have 4 attacks at AP-1
Or 40 shots at 30“ range with AP-2

These are just two basic implications if these prove to be true.

Must be nice to have vet intercessors in the first place.

All you have to do is pay 1CP for the ability to pay another 1CP per squad before the game, to spend 2CP+ during the game each time. In an Army likely to have two intercessor squads, and 8 CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And suddenly Veteran Intercessors have 4 attacks at AP-1
Or 40 shots at 30“ range with AP-2

These are just two basic implications if these prove to be true.

Must be nice to have vet intercessors in the first place.

If the rumor pans out to be true they will be a fearsome and affordable troop unit with significant output. Two sgts with power fists will gave the same output as a full squad of Terminators.
Keep in mind that these rumors are for the main Astartes codex. We don't know if it will be Primaris focused or if it will involve chapters like the BA, DA and SW

I'm not familiar with the rumor you're talking about, but I saw someone mention previously that they'd have 5A with a powerfist. If true, they'll each have just under 1/4 and collectively just under 1/2 of a full Terminator Squad. A full Terminator Squad (assuming they don't ALSO get this rule will have 18(9x2)+3=21 Power Fist Attacks. Two Sgts with 5A each is 10.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So would the D2 - D1 debuff affect ALL astartes units, or just troops? Because I can see this getting abused by making Aggressors like blocking units. Then again, a squad of aggressors surrounding Gman would be an ugly castle...

I already played with that idea, and decided to do Calgar+LT+Apothecary. The Apothecary can't heal Grandpappy Smurf for some stupid oversighted reason, and Calgar+LT is close enough, cheaper, and enjoys the Apothecary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, I don't even want to think about Leviathans walking around with the -1 to all damage buff.

To be honest, the problem with Intercessors is the cost, not the survivability. I would much prefer cheaper chaff than harder to kill chaff. I think the D2-D1 would go well on Elite level infantry and vehicles. Oh gawd a full squad of Hellblasters with this...

This feeds into the main problem with Marines, and the "default"/Battalion detachment. Raising it from 1HQ 2Troop to 2HQ 3Troop hit Marines far "harder" than other armies. They realized Detachement CP would hit Knights hard, but I don't think they realized how much of the Marine list would become de rigueur - and not in a good way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:


I think a lot of people are in my position: i'm playing my Dark Eldar while I wait for marines to get fixed. Once they do, i'll go out and buy 3,000+ points of them. And then I have friends who aren't playing at all until they get fixed. There's thousands of dollar worth of marines waiting to be scooped up in my direct game group alone :(

I'd rather play my Dark Eldar, while buying and painting 3,000 points of Marines in preparation for when they fix them. If I wanted until they were fixed, they'd be broken again by the time I had it all bought and painted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:



Also, are GW making so many marines because they're 60% of GW' sales, or are marines 60% of GW's sales because they make so many marines?

You're suggesting people buy Marine kits because all the other armies are sold out and they don't have a choice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


To be honest, the problem with Intercessors is the cost, not the survivability. I would much prefer cheaper chaff than harder to kill chaff. I think the D2-D1 would go well on Elite level infantry and vehicles. Oh gawd a full squad of Hellblasters with this...

The problem is also calling them chaff. An Elite/Low Model Count army doesn't have room for chaff. The problem with Marines in general is the cost and the survivability. Intercessors are close to accurate. Guard are 4PPM, Normal Marines are 13, Intercessors 17, Scouts 11. They're all over-costed. Scouts coming in at 8 still feels high but pretty close for 1S, 1T, and 1 save. A 10 man Tactical Squad coming in at 100 before upgrades, and 10 man Intercessors at 120-130 will free up a fair bit of points for more army list variety. Terminators with gear are about 35, make them 20-25 - OR - Make Terminator/Aggressor Armor the Toughness version of a power Fist i.e. T (x2) That should drastically reduce their risk from death by a thousand lasgun papercuts. A T8 2W Agressor/Terminator is probably worth the 35ish points.

Breton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And suddenly Veteran Intercessors have 4 attacks at AP-1
Or 40 shots at 30“ range with AP-2

These are just two basic implications if these prove to be true.

Must be nice to have vet intercessors in the first place.

All you have to do is pay 1CP for the ability to pay another 1CP per squad before the game, to spend 2CP+ during the game each time. In an Army likely to have two intercessor squads, and 8 CP.

Blood Angels can't have vet intercessors.

Rulvek wrote:

Breton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And suddenly Veteran Intercessors have 4 attacks at AP-1
Or 40 shots at 30“ range with AP-2

These are just two basic implications if these prove to be true.

Must be nice to have vet intercessors in the first place.

All you have to do is pay 1CP for the ability to pay another 1CP per squad before the game, to spend 2CP+ during the game each time. In an Army likely to have two intercessor squads, and 8 CP.

Blood Angels can't have vet intercessors.

personally I always thought that was silly. would the indomatus crusade veterns really be broken if BAs, SWs or DAs could take it?

No, they wouldn't. But GW gonna GW. The same thing is affecting the executioner now.

Martel732 wrote:
No, they wouldn't. But GW gonna GW. The same thing is affecting the executioner now.

I expect the executioner will be clarified swiftly eneugh. it'd be the first Primaris unit (well outside of victrix guard) that would be restricted otherwise and it seems an odd choice.

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, they wouldn't. But GW gonna GW. The same thing is affecting the executioner now.

I expect the executioner will be clarified swiftly eneugh. it'd be the first Primaris unit (well outside of victrix guard) that would be restricted otherwise and it seems an odd choice.

Centurions, Storm Talons, and Stormhawks would like a word with you...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though for what it's worth I do expect everyone to get the Executioner.

 Stux wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, they wouldn't. But GW gonna GW. The same thing is affecting the executioner now.

I expect the executioner will be clarified swiftly eneugh. it'd be the first Primaris unit (well outside of victrix guard) that would be restricted otherwise and it seems an odd choice.

Centurions, Storm Talons, and Stormhawks would like a word with you...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though for what it's worth I do expect everyone to get the Executioner.

Centurions, Storm Talons and Stormhawks are primaris units? I must have missed that. what FAQ was it in?

BrianDavion wrote:

I expect the executioner will be clarified swiftly eneugh. it'd be the first Primaris unit (well outside of victrix guard) that would be restricted otherwise and it seems an odd choice.

Given that the entire Phobos line (excepting Rievers) is still locked out from Deathwatch players, dont bet against GW rules stupidity when it comes to non-codex Marines.

Martel732 wrote:
No, they wouldn't. But GW gonna GW. The same thing is affecting the executioner now.

BeCaUsE ThEy DiFfErEnT ArMiEs BuY oUr UnnEcESsaRY mUltIple MaRiNe CoDIceS!!!

BrianDavion wrote:

 Stux wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, they wouldn't. But GW gonna GW. The same thing is affecting the executioner now.

I expect the executioner will be clarified swiftly eneugh. it'd be the first Primaris unit (well outside of victrix guard) that would be restricted otherwise and it seems an odd choice.

Centurions, Storm Talons, and Stormhawks would like a word with you...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though for what it's worth I do expect everyone to get the Executioner.

Centurions, Storm Talons and Stormhawks are primaris units? I must have missed that. what FAQ was it in?

They aren't, but they really should be. Getting the Primaris treatment (aka +1 wound) would put Centurions in a spot where an average Lascannon shot doesn't kill one and Primaris wouldn't mind a really fast transport even if it does have a lot of the same issues as a Repulsor.

 Ishagu wrote:
Valrak just shared this rumour. He was sent the info.

"Marines will gain a rule included in the new Angel of Death rule, SM will gain +1A during the first fight phase or something like that. But that's not all, we have something like the Deathwatch Doctrine! At the start of each turn/round, we can choose one, and one of them is awesome, a bonus of -1 to AP in the shooting or fighting phase"

Who is this Valrak, and how reliable he is? To me this seems decently powerful. First round of combat is often decisive, so having an extra attack then is pretty significant. Also, constant AP bonus is a rather big deal; in fact all this seems too good to be true.

Also, this should probably be posted in the rumours section.

 Crimson wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Valrak just shared this rumour. He was sent the info.

"Marines will gain a rule included in the new Angel of Death rule, SM will gain +1A during the first fight phase or something like that. But that's not all, we have something like the Deathwatch Doctrine! At the start of each turn/round, we can choose one, and one of them is awesome, a bonus of -1 to AP in the shooting or fighting phase"

Who is this Valrak, and how reliable he is? To me this seems decently powerful. First round of combat is often decisive, so having an extra attack then is pretty significant. Also, constant AP bonus is a rather big deal; in fact all this seems too good to be true.

Also, this should probably be posted in the rumours section.

First rule of Valrak, don't talk about Valrak....

Wait it came from Valrak?

I don't know what this means

Deathwatch would have a big hole filled if they had access to the Executioner. Combine that with a Watch Captain with Dominus Aegis and Tome of Ectoclades, they could be reliable AT platforms.

Rulvek wrote:

Breton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And suddenly Veteran Intercessors have 4 attacks at AP-1
Or 40 shots at 30“ range with AP-2

These are just two basic implications if these prove to be true.

Must be nice to have vet intercessors in the first place.

All you have to do is pay 1CP for the ability to pay another 1CP per squad before the game, to spend 2CP+ during the game each time. In an Army likely to have two intercessor squads, and 8 CP.

Blood Angels can't have vet intercessors.

Which is yet another problem with having to split Marines up into increasingly speclaised and indulgent minidexes for some and one dex for other 996 including the other First Founding Chapters - its just stupid.

 Ishagu wrote:
Valrak just shared this rumour. He was sent the info.

"Marines will gain a rule included in the new Angel of Death rule, SM will gain +1A during the first fight phase or something like that. But that's not all, we have something like the Deathwatch Doctrine! At the start of each turn/round, we can choose one, and one of them is awesome, a bonus of -1 to AP in the shooting or fighting phase"

If it's like Deathwatch it will only work on Bolter-type weapons. Which is still a welcome addition, but not as impactful as just a blanket +1 AP would be.

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, they wouldn't. But GW gonna GW. The same thing is affecting the executioner now.

I expect the executioner will be clarified swiftly eneugh. it'd be the first Primaris unit (well outside of victrix guard) that would be restricted otherwise and it seems an odd choice.

Especially since the Blood Angels for example can use the Executioner in Apocalypse.

The Newman wrote:

If it's like Deathwatch it will only work on Bolter-type weapons. Which is still a welcome addition, but not as impactful as just a blanket +1 AP would be.

Um...what? Both Mission Tactics (DW Chapter tactics) and Doctrines (strategems) apply to all weapons.

Sterling191 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

If it's like Deathwatch it will only work on Bolter-type weapons. Which is still a welcome addition, but not as impactful as just a blanket +1 AP would be.

Um...what? Both Mission Tactics (DW Chapter tactics) and Doctrines (strategems) apply to all weapons.

I think he's referring to SIA, but it's an odd reference to make in any case.

He’s talking about the rumored -1 AP.

I kinda feel like -1AP ability for all Marines would be a double edged sword.
While it would certainly make them more killy, since over half the playable factions are Marines, it would also punish them more too and exacerbate their durability issues.

AP is generally more effective against "elite" units that rely on better armour. IMO, a better option would be more attacks, not better AP

-

Lemondish wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

If it's like Deathwatch it will only work on Bolter-type weapons. Which is still a welcome addition, but not as impactful as just a blanket +1 AP would be.

Um...what? Both Mission Tactics (DW Chapter tactics) and Doctrines (strategems) apply to all weapons.

I think he's referring to SIA, but it's an odd reference to make in any case.

The Deathwatch AP bonus is on SIA, so it's not that odd of a leap to make. It's a better fit than their "I get bonuses vs troops / heavy support / elite / fast attack" abilities that have to be chosen before the game starts and require a strat to change.

The Newman wrote:


The Deathwatch AP bonus is on SIA, so it's not that odd of a leap to make. It's a better fit than their "I get bonuses vs troops / heavy support / elite / fast attack" abilities that have to be chosen before the game starts and require a strat to change.

Excepting of course that SIA is far more than just "you get more AP", but you know that. Frankly you could give SIA to all marines and it wouldnt do gak about the factions underlying issues.

Its a bad analogy in the context of a (highly suspect) rumored addition that supposedly works across more than a single weapon type, and functions in realms beyond the shooting phase.

 Galef wrote:
I kinda feel like -1AP ability for all Marines would be a double edged sword.
While it would certainly make them more killy, since over half the playable factions are Marines, it would also punish them more too and exacerbate their durability issues.

AP is generally more effective against "elite" units that rely on better armour. IMO, a better option would be more attacks, not better AP

This is certainly true. I hope that the other bonuses the can choose are something to increase their durability and something that helps against chaff. Not that I find it terribly likely that these rumours are true, they sound pretty wild.

 Galef wrote:
I kinda feel like -1AP ability for all Marines would be a double edged sword.
While it would certainly make them more killy, since over half the playable factions are Marines, it would also punish them more too and exacerbate their durability issues.

-

That would only be coming up in the mirror match though, so it cancels out. Mathematically the Marine vs Marine win percentage isn't relevant when figuring the faction's overall win rate. If this makes Marines better versus the rest of the field it will make their win rate better overall.

The Newman wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I kinda feel like -1AP ability for all Marines would be a double edged sword.
While it would certainly make them more killy, since over half the playable factions are Marines, it would also punish them more too and exacerbate their durability issues.

-

That would only be coming up in the mirror match though, so it cancels out. Mathematically the Marine vs Marine win percentage isn't relevant when figuring the faction's overall win rate. If this makes Marines better versus the rest of the field it will make their win rate better overall.

Winrates aren't everything though, people don't want to play rocket tag even if the odds are 50/50

Rulvek wrote:

Breton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And suddenly Veteran Intercessors have 4 attacks at AP-1
Or 40 shots at 30“ range with AP-2

These are just two basic implications if these prove to be true.

Must be nice to have vet intercessors in the first place.

All you have to do is pay 1CP for the ability to pay another 1CP per squad before the game, to spend 2CP+ during the game each time. In an Army likely to have two intercessor squads, and 8 CP.

Blood Angels can't have vet intercessors.

My sarcasm must not have translated over the internet. I'm of the opinion that in a normal game using anything like fluffy high "composition score" armies nobody can have Vet Intercessors. The CP cost of the specialist detachment is a wee bit prohibitive. However, reading the page, what makes you think BA can't use it? The Pick a Space Marines Detachment? Space Marines sometimes does and sometimes doesn't include BA/DA/SW. GW sadly wasn't smart enough to make SPACE MARINES a keyword for when they mean CODEX SPACE MARINES instead of ADEPTUS ASTARTES FORMERLY KNOWN AS Space Marines when even they are still using the Space Marine catch-all Descriptive label-not-keyword interchangably with the Adeptus Astartes catch-all Descriptive label-not-keyword.. I wouldn't blink if someone tried to make a BA/DA/etc unit with this stratagem set. At least not from a rules or fluff standpoint. I'd applaud if they were doing it with a full Primaris Successor Chapter. I'd blink pretty hard at anyone spending CP's on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, they wouldn't. But GW gonna GW. The same thing is affecting the executioner now.

I expect the executioner will be clarified swiftly eneugh. it'd be the first Primaris unit (well outside of victrix guard) that would be restricted otherwise and it seems an odd choice.

Centurions, Storm Talons, and Stormhawks would like a word with you...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though for what it's worth I do expect everyone to get the Executioner.

Pardon me for laughing uncontrollably at how many people who tried to argue with me about this in the two weeks or so prior to release. And yeah, I'm surprised it isn't already FAQ'ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:


Who is this Valrak, and how reliable he is? To me this seems decently powerful. First round of combat is often decisive, so having an extra attack then is pretty significant. Also, constant AP bonus is a rather big deal; in fact all this seems too good to be true.

Also, this should probably be posted in the rumours section.

Valrak is an Imperial Fist player with a monetized? Youtube channel that runs "news", educational fluff, and hypothetical fluff videos i.e. he ran a Repulsor Executioner Video.. about the same time as the datasheet leaked, probably after because I think he had the leaked data sheet in it - and then I think he ran another one of an unboxing once it released. He runs Who is..... Videos especially for the Primarchs, and What if.... (Insert Primarch) returned next and I think another seris that was "instead of Guilliman" instead of "next". Between the youtube monetization, plus some in video advertising for a discount online retailer. Between that plus other advertising and kickbacks like offbrand giant resin models, I suspect the channel is mostly just a way to pay for plastic crack and keep him busy. As for reliability, He's not Elizabeth Cochran Seaman, but he gets enough traffic, I'd absolutely believe GW would plant a leak on him to get the word out.

Breton wrote:
However, reading the page, what makes you think BA can't use it? The Pick a Space Marines Detachment?

Yes, along with the FAQ that states...

Q: Is a Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves or Deathwatch Detachment also a Space Marines Detachment?
A: No. As defined in Codex: Space Marines, a Space Marines Detachment is a Detachment that only includes units with one of the following Faction keywords:
<Chapter>, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, White Scars, Raven Guard, Iron Hands, Crimson Fists or Black Templars.

Man, if ever there was a dumb design idea. Due to the paint on your armor, you are completely incapable of understanding how this predator shoots it's gun.

If this rumor proves true, I hope Grey Knights also get in on it. The extra attacks in combat would definitely be a boon for them (maybe people will run weapons other than falchions now).

Getting a free extra -1 AP on StormBolters would also be really cool, because we're almost forced to spend 2CP for Psybolt Ammunition every turn, and CP is not something Grey Knights are swimming in.

They could give GK 3 AP to their weapons and an extra 12" to their Smite, and they would still be a dumpster fire. There is nothing except a complete re-write of the GK book that can save them.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Man, if ever there was a dumb design idea. Due to the paint on your armor, you are completely incapable of understanding how this predator shoots it's gun.

Well, that's what people who like these variant codices want. No consolidation, mah unique units!

 Crimson wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Man, if ever there was a dumb design idea. Due to the paint on your armor, you are completely incapable of understanding how this predator shoots it's gun.

Well, that's what people who like these variant codices want. No consolidation, mah unique units!

Vulkan doesn't understand how the Baal Pred works.

"Wait.....hold on....a tank that shoots fire? I don't understand that at all. Count me out."

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Man, if ever there was a dumb design idea. Due to the paint on your armor, you are completely incapable of understanding how this predator shoots it's gun.

Well, that's what people who like these variant codices want. No consolidation, mah unique units!

Vulkan doesn't understand how the Baal Pred works.

"Wait.....hold on....a tank that shoots fire? I don't understand that at all. Count me out."

Exactly. Some of this stuff needs to be available to everyone. Did you know that, for some God forsaken reason, NO Dark Angels or Blood Angels successor has had Centurions ever for no good reason?

 Stux wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I kinda feel like -1AP ability for all Marines would be a double edged sword.
While it would certainly make them more killy, since over half the playable factions are Marines, it would also punish them more too and exacerbate their durability issues.

-

That would only be coming up in the mirror match though, so it cancels out. Mathematically the Marine vs Marine win percentage isn't relevant when figuring the faction's overall win rate. If this makes Marines better versus the rest of the field it will make their win rate better overall.

Winrates aren't everything though, people don't want to play rocket tag even if the odds are 50/50

LOL not necessarily true. In URT it was a pretty common and fun mode to do all rocket mode or instagib (basically 1 shotting lasers). Games were fast and it really is a great test of quickness and accuracy.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Exactly. Some of this stuff needs to be available to everyone. Did you know that, for some God forsaken reason, NO Dark Angels or Blood Angels successor has had Centurions ever for no good reason?

Perhaps they have some aesthetic standards.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Man, if ever there was a dumb design idea. Due to the paint on your armor, you are completely incapable of understanding how this predator shoots it's gun.

Well, that's what people who like these variant codices want. No consolidation, mah unique units!

Vulkan doesn't understand how the Baal Pred works.

"Wait.....hold on....a tank that shoots fire? I don't understand that at all. Count me out."

Exactly. Some of this stuff needs to be available to everyone. Did you know that, for some God forsaken reason, NO Dark Angels or Blood Angels successor has had Centurions ever for no good reason?

Yeah. It doesn't make business sense ether. It think its to make up for the fact that...codex compliant chapters don't get things like Sang guard, Black Knights, Death company, ect. Cause these "snowflake" chapters have historically been marines +1 since forever. It's only recently and due to the insane buffs from gman that "vanilla" marines are even in the mix. I am all for complete consolidation of marine armies. Just make 1 codex. You can even charge 100 bucks(quid for you english chaps) for it and have it be as thick as a dictionary. These armies share 95% of units and are distinguished by a paragraphs worth of special rules and 2 or 3 unit entries.

I think the Primaris line of Superbois was designed to unify the fluff. I mean, there are no special snowflake primaris units now.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think the Primaris line of Superbois was designed to unify the fluff. I mean, there are no special snowflake primaris units now.

Possibly. Though it could easily be a "not yet" kind of situation.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Exactly. Some of this stuff needs to be available to everyone. Did you know that, for some God forsaken reason, NO Dark Angels or Blood Angels successor has had Centurions ever for no good reason?

Perhaps they have some aesthetic standards.

Cue someone popping up to defend Centurion aesthetics in 3 ... 2 ... oh wait, I'm here already.

Honestly everyone is entitled to their opinion but it bothers me just a bit how some subjective stuff gets stated like it's a self-evident fact around here (I know, I know, "welcome to the internet"). I happen to think Centurions are the best looking models GW has ever produced. I won't argue if you want to say the rules could suck a golf ball through a garden hose, but whether something looks good is entirely a matter of perspective.

The Newman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Exactly. Some of this stuff needs to be available to everyone. Did you know that, for some God forsaken reason, NO Dark Angels or Blood Angels successor has had Centurions ever for no good reason?

Perhaps they have some aesthetic standards.

Cue someone popping up to defend Centurion aesthetics in 3 ... 2 ... oh wait, I'm here already.

Honestly everyone is entitled to their opinion but it bothers me just a bit how some subjective stuff gets stated like it's a self-evident fact around here (I know, I know, "welcome to the internet"). I happen to think Centurions are the best looking models GW has ever produced. I won't argue if you want to say the rules could suck a golf ball through a garden hose, but whether something looks good is entirely a matter of perspective.

They just got the "fun to hate" reputation because lots of SM players don't wanna buy new models - primaris get the same hate too. They are great models IMO. Funny you hear 0 complaints about the new oblitz models even though they are chaos cents now lol.

Or maybe people who are playing a rigidly dogmatic force with clear structure object to the injection of units that don't get close to fitting the dogma, have no use in their dogmatic doctrines, make no sense in their structure, and are nothing like army as is.

That's wildly different from "new oblitz", a unit that fits nicely into the dogma, doctrines, and structure of the army as is. In an army known specifically for not being rigidly dogmatic.

"New Oblitz" for Chaos Marines is nothing like Cents or Primaris for Loyalists.

The fluff certainly isn't a masterpiece, but it's a lot more nuanced than "Loyalists are shiny, CSM are bloody".

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:
However, reading the page, what makes you think BA can't use it? The Pick a Space Marines Detachment?

Yes, along with the FAQ that states...

Q: Is a Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves or Deathwatch Detachment also a Space Marines Detachment?
A: No. As defined in Codex: Space Marines, a Space Marines Detachment is a Detachment that only includes units with one of the following Faction keywords:
<Chapter>, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, White Scars, Raven Guard, Iron Hands, Crimson Fists or Black Templars.

Funnily enough, this means Blood Ravens are not space marines

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think the Primaris line of Superbois was designed to unify the fluff. I mean, there are no special snowflake primaris units now.

*cough* wolfwolfwolf leaders? *cough*

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. Some of this stuff needs to be available to everyone. Did you know that, for some God forsaken reason, NO Dark Angels or Blood Angels successor has had Centurions ever for no good reason?

You can have them as soon as SM get veteran bikers, terminators, Talons, lieutenants in land speeders (and twinned weaponry, too, SM not being able to put extra gun on LS is doubly dumb), and rest of exclusive nonsense that often makes no sense (like not being able to put plasma gun into gun sized mount on bike or other SM terminators forgetting how to use anything but heavy flamer...). Deal?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah. It doesn't make business sense ether. It think its to make up for the fact that...codex compliant chapters don't get things like Sang guard, Black Knights, Death company, ect. Cause these "snowflake" chapters have historically been marines +1 since forever. It's only recently and due to the insane buffs from gman that "vanilla" marines are even in the mix. I am all for complete consolidation of marine armies. Just make 1 codex. You can even charge 100 bucks(quid for you english chaps) for it and have it be as thick as a dictionary. These armies share 95% of units and are distinguished by a paragraphs worth of special rules and 2 or 3 unit entries.

Yeah, all SM armies had their own unique strong points in 5th edition (last one when they had any thought put into their books...), but since then, whiners managed to complain until 90% of units exclusive to 'vanilla' SM were handed to special snowflakes, even when it made no sense (because snowflake unit they got instead of generic equipment was so much better no one even used the successfully whined out units, or even better, it didn't fit the fluff of snowflake but they got it anyway). That was entirely one way street, though, and they really should either pare down deviants into their own unique things that CAN'T do everything Codex chapters can, or just take example of HH and make Codex: Marines with variants being given a page of special rules, plus unit or two of their own combined with lack of access to something else. Rites of war is (IMO) one of the few rare things HH did really well...

 Irbis wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:
However, reading the page, what makes you think BA can't use it? The Pick a Space Marines Detachment?

Yes, along with the FAQ that states...

Q: Is a Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves or Deathwatch Detachment also a Space Marines Detachment?
A: No. As defined in Codex: Space Marines, a Space Marines Detachment is a Detachment that only includes units with one of the following Faction keywords:
<Chapter>, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, White Scars, Raven Guard, Iron Hands, Crimson Fists or Black Templars.

Funnily enough, this means Blood Ravens are not space marines

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think the Primaris line of Superbois was designed to unify the fluff. I mean, there are no special snowflake primaris units now.

*cough* wolfwolfwolf leaders? *cough*

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. Some of this stuff needs to be available to everyone. Did you know that, for some God forsaken reason, NO Dark Angels or Blood Angels successor has had Centurions ever for no good reason?

You can have them as soon as SM get veteran bikers, terminators, Talons, lieutenants in land speeders (and twinned weaponry, too, SM not being able to put extra gun on LS is doubly dumb), and rest of exclusive nonsense that often makes no sense (like not being able to put plasma gun into gun sized mount on bike or other SM terminators forgetting how to use anything but heavy flamer...). Deal?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah. It doesn't make business sense ether. It think its to make up for the fact that...codex compliant chapters don't get things like Sang guard, Black Knights, Death company, ect. Cause these "snowflake" chapters have historically been marines +1 since forever. It's only recently and due to the insane buffs from gman that "vanilla" marines are even in the mix. I am all for complete consolidation of marine armies. Just make 1 codex. You can even charge 100 bucks(quid for you english chaps) for it and have it be as thick as a dictionary. These armies share 95% of units and are distinguished by a paragraphs worth of special rules and 2 or 3 unit entries.

Yeah, all SM armies had their own unique strong points in 5th edition (last one when they had any thought put into their books...), but since then, whiners managed to complain until 90% of units exclusive to 'vanilla' SM were handed to special snowflakes, even when it made no sense (because snowflake unit they got instead of generic equipment was so much better no one even used the successfully whined out units, or even better, it didn't fit the fluff of snowflake but they got it anyway). That was entirely one way street, though, and they really should either pare down deviants into their own unique things that CAN'T do everything Codex chapters can, or just take example of HH and make Codex: Marines with variants being given a page of special rules, plus unit or two of their own combined with lack of access to something else. Rites of war is (IMO) one of the few rare things HH did really well...

To be fair, Spacepooches aren't even Astartes anymore than Bullgryns are. They are mutants, and even derided as heretics by the inquisition. They are a bull crap furry fan fic that wears power armor. So, yeah, they can have all their special chariots pulled by wolves. They are a bullcrap faction.

Oh look, its "gak on other people's faction choices" o'clock again.

Bharring wrote:
Or maybe people who are playing a rigidly dogmatic force with clear structure object to the injection of units that don't get close to fitting the dogma, have no use in their dogmatic doctrines, make no sense in their structure, and are nothing like army as is.

That's wildly different from "new oblitz", a unit that fits nicely into the dogma, doctrines, and structure of the army as is. In an army known specifically for not being rigidly dogmatic.

"New Oblitz" for Chaos Marines is nothing like Cents or Primaris for Loyalists.

The fluff certainly isn't a masterpiece, but it's a lot more nuanced than "Loyalists are shiny, CSM are bloody".

Every unit is a new unit at some point. Plus these are fluff argument which are fine. It's no reason not to like the models. IMO cents look a lot better than the new oblitz. But since it doesn't have spikes....everyone complains.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or maybe people who are playing a rigidly dogmatic force with clear structure object to the injection of units that don't get close to fitting the dogma, have no use in their dogmatic doctrines, make no sense in their structure, and are nothing like army as is.

That's wildly different from "new oblitz", a unit that fits nicely into the dogma, doctrines, and structure of the army as is. In an army known specifically for not being rigidly dogmatic.

"New Oblitz" for Chaos Marines is nothing like Cents or Primaris for Loyalists.

The fluff certainly isn't a masterpiece, but it's a lot more nuanced than "Loyalists are shiny, CSM are bloody".

Every unit is a new unit at some point. Plus these are fluff argument which are fine. It's no reason not to like the models.

IOW: "Your argument is fine. But it's no reason to have an opinion."

IMO cents look a lot better than the new oblitz.

That's as valid an opinion as any.

But since it doesn't have spikes....everyone complains.

But your followup is to return to dismissing any opinion that dissents as silly.

Sure, some of the complaints are about the model itself ("Lets enclose an engineered super-soldier in Power Armor. Then lets enclose that Power Armor in *bigger* Power Armor."). But most complaints about Cents were about fluff, role, and fit - not about how good the model looked. Dismissing those as "Stupid people don't understand - my opinion is the one true way" doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or maybe people who are playing a rigidly dogmatic force with clear structure object to the injection of units that don't get close to fitting the dogma, have no use in their dogmatic doctrines, make no sense in their structure, and are nothing like army as is.

That's wildly different from "new oblitz", a unit that fits nicely into the dogma, doctrines, and structure of the army as is. In an army known specifically for not being rigidly dogmatic.

"New Oblitz" for Chaos Marines is nothing like Cents or Primaris for Loyalists.

The fluff certainly isn't a masterpiece, but it's a lot more nuanced than "Loyalists are shiny, CSM are bloody".

Every unit is a new unit at some point. Plus these are fluff argument which are fine. It's no reason not to like the models.

IOW: "Your argument is fine. But it's no reason to have an opinion."

IMO cents look a lot better than the new oblitz.

That's as valid an opinion as any.

But since it doesn't have spikes....everyone complains.

But your followup is to return to dismissing any opinion that dissents as silly.

Sure, some of the complaints are about the model itself ("Lets enclose an engineered super-soldier in Power Armor. Then lets enclose that Power Armor in *bigger* Power Armor."). But most complaints about Cents were about fluff, role, and fit - not about how good the model looked. Dismissing those as "Stupid people don't understand - my opinion is the one true way" doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Cents have got to be the most hated model in the history of the game. You can basically predict when someone mentions them that the next 10-20 posts will be people arguing about how they are ugly and should't exist. Just drawing a parallel with the new oblit models which it doesn't happen for them. I wasn't saying your argument was bad ether because it was a fluff one. I was just stating that fluff is not a reason to not like a models aesthetics unless it was misprotreying something about it's own lore - these don't do that. It's basically ad hominem attack against cents when it happens.

To rephrase:
You can have the opinion they shouldn't exist - but don't say the models look bad because of that opinion. If you think they look bad because they look bad fine. I just find that hard to believe. They are pretty sweet looking.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or maybe people who are playing a rigidly dogmatic force with clear structure object to the injection of units that don't get close to fitting the dogma, have no use in their dogmatic doctrines, make no sense in their structure, and are nothing like army as is.

That's wildly different from "new oblitz", a unit that fits nicely into the dogma, doctrines, and structure of the army as is. In an army known specifically for not being rigidly dogmatic.

"New Oblitz" for Chaos Marines is nothing like Cents or Primaris for Loyalists.

The fluff certainly isn't a masterpiece, but it's a lot more nuanced than "Loyalists are shiny, CSM are bloody".

Every unit is a new unit at some point. Plus these are fluff argument which are fine. It's no reason not to like the models.

IOW: "Your argument is fine. But it's no reason to have an opinion."

IMO cents look a lot better than the new oblitz.

That's as valid an opinion as any.

But since it doesn't have spikes....everyone complains.

But your followup is to return to dismissing any opinion that dissents as silly.

Sure, some of the complaints are about the model itself ("Lets enclose an engineered super-soldier in Power Armor. Then lets enclose that Power Armor in *bigger* Power Armor."). But most complaints about Cents were about fluff, role, and fit - not about how good the model looked. Dismissing those as "Stupid people don't understand - my opinion is the one true way" doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Cents have got to be the most hated model in the history of the game. You can basically predict when someone mentions them that the next 10-20 posts will be people arguing about how they are ugly and should't exist. Just drawing a parallel with the new oblit models which it doesn't happen for them. I wasn't saying your argument was bad ether because it was a fluff one. I was just stating that fluff is not a reason to not like a models aesthetics unless it was misprotreying something about it's own lore

Not true. Models' aesthetics can be disliked for a wide array of reasons. One is misportraying something about their own lore. Another is having terrible lore manifest in the model ("Power Armor wearing Power Armor"). Another is not meshing with the scene (such as the army stands next to). Another is because it looks dumb (I think Cents look dumb even beyond the fluff problems). People should - and will - like or dislike how a model looks for a variety of factors that impact how it looks. And how it reflects it's specfic subset of lore is only one small part of that.

- these don't do that.

Debateable. But not meaningful, as that's not the only measure.

It's basically ad hominem attack against cents when it happens.

Do you know what they call an ad hominem attack against the actual subject of debate? A logical argument. The `ad hominem` fallacy is when you attack an individual instead of the subject. An attack on the subject is effectively the *exact opposite* of the `ad hominem` fallacy.

To rephrase:
You can have the opinion they shouldn't exist - but don't say the models look bad because of that opinion.

But what if models *do* look bad because of the fluff abominations? If a new Guardsman came out with a Lasgun bigger than a Predator, it'd look bad. Not fitting the scene is part of asethetics of the models.

I'm not saying they look bad purely because they shouldn't exist. I'm saying they look bad because their lore is so terrible and they fit the scene so badly. Power Armor wearing Power Armor just looks silly to me.

Its not an attack on the subject. If you believe cents shouldn't exist due to fluff and then GW says - "nope this is the new fluff" then people start calling them ugly because you don't want them to exist. It's literally text book ad hominem.

Attacking the person (thing) and not the argument is ad hominem.

Firstly any news or speculation on this new rule?

Second I think cents are interesting cause they basically took dread level firepower and slapped it on a single marine.

 fraser1191 wrote:
Firstly any news or speculation on this new rule?

Second I think cents are interesting cause they basically took dread level firepower and slapped it on a single marine.

Nope typical GW pace.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Its not an attack on the subject.

When arguing whether they should exist, calling them ugly is an ad hominem *if and only if* being ugly is irrelevant to whether they should exist.
When arguing whether they are ugly, arguing they should/should not exist is an ad hominem *if and only if* whether they should exist is irrelevant to asethetics.

If you believe cents shouldn't exist due to fluff and then GW says - "nope this is the new fluff" then people start calling them ugly because you don't want them to exist. It's literally text book ad hominem.

Two adhominem examples in one sentence.

First, mixing "people" and "you" makes the intention to attack the person you're arguing with obvious, even if ineffectual in this case.
Second, way you intended - close enough. There's an example of an ad hominem there, too. Calling something ugly because of something that doesn't impact whether it's ugly would be an ad hominem. But two problems with that.

The first is a non sequitor. You're assuming that the concept behind the model has no bearings on it's asethetics. The high bias of people appreciating the looks of non-abstract models basically dismisses that claim out of hand. Models clearly look more or less ugly in part by the concepts they represent - because if they did not, random abstract models would be just as sought after as models that represent actual things.

The second is a strawman. You're asserting that the only reason people think the models are ugly is because they hate the fluff.

Attacking the person (thing) and not the argument is ad hominem.

The argument here is the thing - Centurions. Attacking Centurions is entirely on-topic and not an ad hominem when discussing their value.

Just to clarify, space wolves are cool, awesome and neat. I love my over the top Logan Chariot thank you much. My guys riding wolves, with wolves on wolves. The wulfen are a bit much, but they hit like a titanium brick so you can't avoid it. Also, the faction as a whole set off PETA so in my book that makes them triple aces.

I don't care if some don't like it, they don't need to play them. However do I constantly say standard marines are beyond boring ? Do I say primaris marines are about the most bland creation ever dreamed up ? That in fact if they are the whole future for marines they are the true resident sleeper faction of 40k ?

No, I don't, so stop pooping on my wolves people. I also think Centurions look cool, they have ED209 toes.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Its not an attack on the subject.

When arguing whether they should exist, calling them ugly is an ad hominem *if and only if* being ugly is irrelevant to whether they should exist.
When arguing whether they are ugly, arguing they should/should not exist is an ad hominem *if and only if* whether they should exist is irrelevant to asethetics.

If you believe cents shouldn't exist due to fluff and then GW says - "nope this is the new fluff" then people start calling them ugly because you don't want them to exist. It's literally text book ad hominem.

Two adhominem examples in one sentence.

First, mixing "people" and "you" makes the intention to attack the person you're arguing with obvious, even if ineffectual in this case.
Second, way you intended - close enough. There's an example of an ad hominem there, too. Calling something ugly because of something that doesn't impact whether it's ugly would be an ad hominem. But two problems with that.

The first is a non sequitor. You're assuming that the concept behind the model has no bearings on it's asethetics. The high bias of people appreciating the looks of non-abstract models basically dismisses that claim out of hand. Models clearly look more or less ugly in part by the concepts they represent - because if they did not, random abstract models would be just as sought after as models that represent actual things.

The second is a strawman. You're asserting that the only reason people think the models are ugly is because they hate the fluff.

Attacking the person (thing) and not the argument is ad hominem.

The argument here is the thing - Centurions. Attacking Centurions is entirely on-topic and not an ad hominem when discussing their value.

Wasn't using you in that sense my friend. "You" is often used as a proxy for a hypothetical individual. Thats the sense I was using it in. A hypothetical person (as I was mentioning the mass online hate against cents) that hates cents. That is who "you" was in that post.

There are 2 basic arguments against cents -
1 - they shouldn't exist in fluff. GW write fluff. So you can't win this argument - so people just use #2 (lots of these people just don't want to by new models - they probably also hate primaris units)

2 - they are ugly.

At least this is the way I see it. There could be other reasons but it's mostly this.

I'm fine with the basic concept of the Centurions, an additional exoskeleton for carrying even heavier weapons seems like fine concept, I just happen to think that the execution is awful. Primaris Centurions, anyone?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Its not an attack on the subject.

When arguing whether they should exist, calling them ugly is an ad hominem *if and only if* being ugly is irrelevant to whether they should exist.
When arguing whether they are ugly, arguing they should/should not exist is an ad hominem *if and only if* whether they should exist is irrelevant to asethetics.

If you believe cents shouldn't exist due to fluff and then GW says - "nope this is the new fluff" then people start calling them ugly because you don't want them to exist. It's literally text book ad hominem.

Two adhominem examples in one sentence.

First, mixing "people" and "you" makes the intention to attack the person you're arguing with obvious, even if ineffectual in this case.
Second, way you intended - close enough. There's an example of an ad hominem there, too. Calling something ugly because of something that doesn't impact whether it's ugly would be an ad hominem. But two problems with that.

The first is a non sequitor. You're assuming that the concept behind the model has no bearings on it's asethetics. The high bias of people appreciating the looks of non-abstract models basically dismisses that claim out of hand. Models clearly look more or less ugly in part by the concepts they represent - because if they did not, random abstract models would be just as sought after as models that represent actual things.

The second is a strawman. You're asserting that the only reason people think the models are ugly is because they hate the fluff.

Attacking the person (thing) and not the argument is ad hominem.

The argument here is the thing - Centurions. Attacking Centurions is entirely on-topic and not an ad hominem when discussing their value.

Wasn't using you in that sense my friend. "You" is often used as a proxy for a hypothetical individual. Thats the sense I was using it in. A hypothetical person (as I was mentioning the mass online hate against cents) that hates cents. That is who "you" was in that post.

The mixed third party pronoun calls meaning into question. I'd suggest consistency in pronouns. Generally using one with only a break or two form the pattern suggests the break(s) to be intentional, and thus impart meaning.

There are 2 basic arguments against cents -
1 - they shouldn't exist in fluff. GW write fluff. So you can't win this argument -

Fandom rejecting WordOfGod for a preferred canon isn't unique to 40k. People certainly can - and do - reject things on such grounds. All the time.

so people just use #2

Rejecting whether something makes sense tends to heavily impact the subjective asethetic impression it has. So whether they think it "should exist"/"makes sense" *does* impact your #2. That's not an Ad Hominem (as long as their asethetic reception is actually impacted, and it's not an excuse).

(lots of these people just don't want to by new models - they probably also hate primaris units)

Lots of people scorned Cents (and/or primaris), then bought new models. You're strawmanning quite heavily here.

2 - they are ugly.

At least this is the way I see it. There could be other reasons but it's mostly this.

False dichotomy. It's funny to see you recognize and dismiss it being so in the same breath.

Bharring you must be a english teacher or something because you seem to enjoy this. You are blowing things out of proportion. The entire above post is full of my opinions. I even end the post with "at least that is what I think". Take a break man.

The problem is you're expressing an opinion that I - and others - are being intentionally dishonest. And, beyond just stating opinion, you're trying to "prove" it.

"Just stating my opinion" doesn't mean as much when your "opinion" belittles others.

Bharring wrote:
The problem is you're expressing an opinion that I - and others - are being intentionally dishonest. And, beyond just stating opinion, you're trying to "prove" it.

"Just stating my opinion" doesn't mean as much when your "opinion" belittles others.

Maybe you aren't being dishonest. In fact I believe you. I think the fact that new choas oblitz don't have the attached stigma that goes along with cents is pretty telling. It is quite possible that I am just a paranoid space marine fanboy even though I play practically every army in the game. The hate space marines get is second to none and cents are their most hated model. Also I forgot another reason. Grav cents hurt their feelers in 7th.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think the fact that new choas oblitz don't have the attached stigma that goes along with cents is pretty telling.

I think it is because being an anatomically implausible abomination is perfectly valid for the Obliterators.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The problem is you're expressing an opinion that I - and others - are being intentionally dishonest. And, beyond just stating opinion, you're trying to "prove" it.

"Just stating my opinion" doesn't mean as much when your "opinion" belittles others.

Maybe you aren't being dishonest. In fact I believe you. I think the fact that new choas oblitz don't have the attached stigma that goes along with cents is pretty telling.

The hate new-Havoks got that new-Oblitz didn't is, I think, much more telling. It's not "Spikes vs Non" that makes the difference.

It is quite possible that I am just a paranoid space marine fanboy even though I play practically every army in the game. The hate space marines get is second to none

You should try posting something like "CWE aren't superior to Marines in every way possible" just once. Space Marines are probably one of the *least* hated factions. CWE, IG, Knights, DE, Ynarri, Tau, and more all get much more hate.

and cents are their most hated model.

How can it simply be "People hate Marines" if Cents get more hate than other Marine kits get?

Also I forgot another reason. Grav cents hurt their feelers in 7th.

People loved the new Windrider Jetbike kit. That "hurt their feelers" far more. So did Serpents. IG Guardsmen. And many, many more kits that are much less hated than Grav Cents.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Just to clarify, space wolves are cool, awesome and neat. I love my over the top Logan Chariot thank you much. My guys riding wolves, with wolves on wolves. The wulfen are a bit much, but they hit like a titanium brick so you can't avoid it. Also, the faction as a whole set off PETA so in my book that makes them triple aces.

I don't care if some don't like it, they don't need to play them. However do I constantly say standard marines are beyond boring ? Do I say primaris marines are about the most bland creation ever dreamed up ? That in fact if they are the whole future for marines they are the true resident sleeper faction of 40k ?

No, I don't, so stop pooping on my wolves people. I also think Centurions look cool, they have ED209 toes.

All I got out of that was "WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF."

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The problem is you're expressing an opinion that I - and others - are being intentionally dishonest. And, beyond just stating opinion, you're trying to "prove" it.

"Just stating my opinion" doesn't mean as much when your "opinion" belittles others.

Maybe you aren't being dishonest. In fact I believe you. I think the fact that new choas oblitz don't have the attached stigma that goes along with cents is pretty telling.

The hate new-Havoks got that new-Oblitz didn't is, I think, much more telling. It's not "Spikes vs Non" that makes the difference.

It is quite possible that I am just a paranoid space marine fanboy even though I play practically every army in the game. The hate space marines get is second to none

You should try posting something like "CWE aren't superior to Marines in every way possible" just once. Space Marines are probably one of the *least* hated factions. CWE, IG, Knights, DE, Ynarri, Tau, and more all get much more hate.

and cents are their most hated model.

How can it simply be "People hate Marines" if Cents get more hate than other Marine kits get?

Also I forgot another reason. Grav cents hurt their feelers in 7th.

People loved the new Windrider Jetbike kit. That "hurt their feelers" far more. So did Serpents. IG Guardsmen. And many, many more kits that are much less hated than Grav Cents.

They got the ability to move and shoot without pentalty and t5 for +1 point which they still aren't very good but have the ability to shoot twice at +1 to wound standard. Their models look awesome though. The new oblitz are literally based of cents...that is the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think the fact that new choas oblitz don't have the attached stigma that goes along with cents is pretty telling.

I think it is because being an anatomically implausible abomination is perfectly valid for the Obliterators.

But a marine driving and exosuit isn't? Exosquad was one of my favorite shows growing up - I think the idea is fine.

 Xenomancers wrote:

But a marine driving and exosuit isn't? Exosquad was one of my favorite shows growing up - I think the idea is fine.

The idea is fine. I just think the execution sucks.

 Galef wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
It's because this is a data sheet for fielding a sarge with pistol, nades, and chainsword.

Nope, datasheet says Intercessor SQUAD, not just the Sgt.
But like I said, it could be that GW is moving away from listing the stats for default wargear and LISTED interchangeable options, but the picture shown is puzzling nonetheless.

-

but that just seems even more confusing to not show the standard loadout.... am i missing something?

Martel732 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Just to clarify, space wolves are cool, awesome and neat. I love my over the top Logan Chariot thank you much. My guys riding wolves, with wolves on wolves. The wulfen are a bit much, but they hit like a titanium brick so you can't avoid it. Also, the faction as a whole set off PETA so in my book that makes them triple aces.

I don't care if some don't like it, they don't need to play them. However do I constantly say standard marines are beyond boring ? Do I say primaris marines are about the most bland creation ever dreamed up ? That in fact if they are the whole future for marines they are the true resident sleeper faction of 40k ?

No, I don't, so stop pooping on my wolves people. I also think Centurions look cool, they have ED209 toes.

All I got out of that was "WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF."

He had me at PETA getting all triggered. I'm in favor of respecting the rights of things with a nervous system but it irritates me to be in agreement with those nutters.

I agree with most of their ideas. But they do have some impractical ideas. I agree with them more than GW, for sure.

Nobody really has any idea what’s going to happen.

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with most of their ideas. But they do have some impractical ideas. I agree with them more than GW, for sure.

Well first off, what I said at first was more " Wolf Wolf Wolf..Wolf...ED209 toes. "

That out of the way the fact you are in agreement with PETA does explain a good deal.

I have to believe a group that feels plastic fur is murder mentally cashed out a long time ago. I think we can all agree animals are good " Being that we ourselves are animals " without drinking their brand of kool aid.

I end with saying, wolf wolf wolf..and wolf. So leave my space wolves alone, I don't swim in your toilet so stop trying to pee in my wolf pool.

Bharring wrote:
Or maybe people who are playing a rigidly dogmatic force with clear structure object to the injection of units that don't get close to fitting the dogma, have no use in their dogmatic doctrines, make no sense in their structure, and are nothing like army as is.

That's wildly different from "new oblitz", a unit that fits nicely into the dogma, doctrines, and structure of the army as is. In an army known specifically for not being rigidly dogmatic.

"New Oblitz" for Chaos Marines is nothing like Cents or Primaris for Loyalists.

The fluff certainly isn't a masterpiece, but it's a lot more nuanced than "Loyalists are shiny, CSM are bloody".

So basically "we don't like change and don't want anything new". Got it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Man, if ever there was a dumb design idea. Due to the paint on your armor, you are completely incapable of understanding how this predator shoots it's gun.

Well, that's what people who like these variant codices want. No consolidation, mah unique units!

Vulkan doesn't understand how the Baal Pred works.

"Wait.....hold on....a tank that shoots fire? I don't understand that at all. Count me out."

Exactly. Some of this stuff needs to be available to everyone. Did you know that, for some God forsaken reason, NO Dark Angels or Blood Angels successor has had Centurions ever for no good reason?

Yeah. It doesn't make business sense ether. It think its to make up for the fact that...codex compliant chapters don't get things like Sang guard, Black Knights, Death company, ect. Cause these "snowflake" chapters have historically been marines +1 since forever. It's only recently and due to the insane buffs from gman that "vanilla" marines are even in the mix. I am all for complete consolidation of marine armies. Just make 1 codex. You can even charge 100 bucks(quid for you english chaps) for it and have it be as thick as a dictionary. These armies share 95% of units and are distinguished by a paragraphs worth of special rules and 2 or 3 unit entries.

Exactly. You just give each Chapter 3-4 unique units and you're done. Bam. Done. Hell I'm for removing certain characters too outside fluff. Nobody is going to miss Asmodai on the table, sorry.

That is easy to say but does it matter?

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with most of their ideas. But they do have some impractical ideas. I agree with them more than GW, for sure.

Well first off, what I said at first was more " Wolf Wolf Wolf..Wolf...ED209 toes. "

That out of the way the fact you are in agreement with PETA does explain a good deal.

I have to believe a group that feels plastic fur is murder mentally cashed out a long time ago. I think we can all agree animals are good " Being that we ourselves are animals " without drinking their brand of kool aid.

I end with saying, wolf wolf wolf..and wolf. So leave my space wolves alone, I don't swim in your toilet so stop trying to pee in my wolf pool.

SW are the one faction i can never leave alone. They are so bad it almost hurts.

Im the first one to acknowledge GW has made BA into an embarrassing pile of gak, so say whatever you want.

I've hated sw since 2nd, so thats not likely to change. They are the first faction id squat if i could.

Martel732 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with most of their ideas. But they do have some impractical ideas. I agree with them more than GW, for sure.

Well first off, what I said at first was more " Wolf Wolf Wolf..Wolf...ED209 toes. "

That out of the way the fact you are in agreement with PETA does explain a good deal.

I have to believe a group that feels plastic fur is murder mentally cashed out a long time ago. I think we can all agree animals are good " Being that we ourselves are animals " without drinking their brand of kool aid.

I end with saying, wolf wolf wolf..and wolf. So leave my space wolves alone, I don't swim in your toilet so stop trying to pee in my wolf pool.

SW are the one faction i can never leave alone. They are so bad it almost hurts.

Im the first one to acknowledge GW has made BA into an embarrassing pile of gak, so say whatever you want.

I've hated sw since 2nd, so thats not likely to change. They are the first faction id squat if i could.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think the Primaris line of Superbois was designed to unify the fluff. I mean, there are no special snowflake primaris units now.

I think the Primaris line was designed to balance Marines not do anything game changing to the fluff. I don't know that it does it, but I also think we're still in the Beta. I also think we're going to get unique Primaris before it's all said and done.

Go ahead. Say it. It amuses me.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Yeah. It doesn't make business sense ether.

This IS the Business sense:

It think its to make up for the fact that...codex compliant chapters don't get things like Sang guard, Black Knights, Death company, ect. Cause these "snowflake" chapters have historically been marines +1 since forever

They want to sell Vanilla Marines too. They may sell more BA/DA if they get everything UM do, but they'll sell fewer UM.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

They just got the "fun to hate" reputation because lots of SM players don't wanna buy new models - primaris get the same hate too. They are great models IMO. Funny you hear 0 complaints about the new oblitz models even though they are chaos cents now lol.

Meh, I don't think they're ugly, and I don't think they're gorgeous. I also don't think they're very good. They can't teleport, they can't transport very well. They're slow and relegated to footslogging. Point for Point I'd rather take other heavy support than the Devastator Centurions. THey're not shootier enough for the lower model count, and this is long before we get into the close assault version even more hampered by transport/teleport/shortcuts. I've kept a few boxes in my shopping cart waiting for them to be worth taking or a time when I didn't have anything better to paint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Cents have got to be the most hated model in the history of the game.

This should provide immense relief to Guilliman.

Bharring wrote:


Sure, some of the complaints are about the model itself ("Lets enclose an engineered super-soldier in Power Armor. Then lets enclose that Power Armor in *bigger* Power Armor.").

Bjorn the Fell Handed is holding for you on Line Two with a question about encasing power armor in more power armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Exactly. You just give each Chapter 3-4 unique units and you're done. Bam. Done. Hell I'm for removing certain characters too outside fluff. Nobody is going to miss Asmodai on the table, sorry.

I will. I miss Sapphon too.

Martel732 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with most of their ideas. But they do have some impractical ideas. I agree with them more than GW, for sure.

Well first off, what I said at first was more " Wolf Wolf Wolf..Wolf...ED209 toes. "

That out of the way the fact you are in agreement with PETA does explain a good deal.

I have to believe a group that feels plastic fur is murder mentally cashed out a long time ago. I think we can all agree animals are good " Being that we ourselves are animals " without drinking their brand of kool aid.

I end with saying, wolf wolf wolf..and wolf. So leave my space wolves alone, I don't swim in your toilet so stop trying to pee in my wolf pool.

SW are the one faction i can never leave alone. They are so bad it almost hurts.

Im the first one to acknowledge GW has made BA into an embarrassing pile of gak, so say whatever you want.

I've hated sw since 2nd, so thats not likely to change. They are the first faction id squat if i could.

Well, it's good you have no capability to squat the wolfie wolves. That is fine to hate a faction, I hate necrons, consider them the one faction I'd never ever play as they are too boring so I get it. That said, I don't be grudge you your blood strike missiles or blood fists. Stop trying to hate on my wolf lords, riding thunder wolves, with a pair of wolves, and a wolf tooth necklace with wolf cape and twin wolf claws carrying his wulfen stone.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with most of their ideas. But they do have some impractical ideas. I agree with them more than GW, for sure.

Well first off, what I said at first was more " Wolf Wolf Wolf..Wolf...ED209 toes. "

That out of the way the fact you are in agreement with PETA does explain a good deal.

I have to believe a group that feels plastic fur is murder mentally cashed out a long time ago. I think we can all agree animals are good " Being that we ourselves are animals " without drinking their brand of kool aid.

I end with saying, wolf wolf wolf..and wolf. So leave my space wolves alone, I don't swim in your toilet so stop trying to pee in my wolf pool.

SW are the one faction i can never leave alone. They are so bad it almost hurts.

Im the first one to acknowledge GW has made BA into an embarrassing pile of gak, so say whatever you want.

I've hated sw since 2nd, so thats not likely to change. They are the first faction id squat if i could.

Well, it's good you have no capability to squat the wolfie wolves. That is fine to hate a faction, I hate necrons, consider them the one faction I'd never ever play as they are too boring so I get it. That said, I don't be grudge you your blood strike missiles or blood fists. Stop trying to hate on my wolf lords, riding thunder wolves, with a pair of wolves, and a wolf tooth necklace with wolf cape and twin wolf claws carrying his wulfen stone.

honestly Martel reminds me of one of those kids who hears it's cool to hate on something so goes overboard with it

I agree with the sentiment behind Martel because Space Wolves lore and fluff is by far the most Marty Stu crap that's ever been done. People like to get on the Ultramarines for this but think about what it means to be the best shining example vs the Space Wolves getting away with ANYTHING.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I agree with the sentiment behind Martel because Space Wolves lore and fluff is by far the most Marty Stu crap that's ever been done. People like to get on the Ultramarines for this but think about what it means to be the best shining example vs the Space Wolves getting away with ANYTHING.

sure but there's a differance between saying the space wolves aren't your cup of tea and basicly responding to a psot where someone mentions they play space wolves with basicly an insult.

BrianDavion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I agree with the sentiment behind Martel because Space Wolves lore and fluff is by far the most Marty Stu crap that's ever been done. People like to get on the Ultramarines for this but think about what it means to be the best shining example vs the Space Wolves getting away with ANYTHING.

sure but there's a differance between saying the space wolves aren't your cup of tea and basicly responding to a psot where someone mentions they play space wolves with basicly an insult.

That's also a fair point.

BrianDavion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I agree with the sentiment behind Martel because Space Wolves lore and fluff is by far the most Marty Stu crap that's ever been done. People like to get on the Ultramarines for this but think about what it means to be the best shining example vs the Space Wolves getting away with ANYTHING.

sure but there's a differance between saying the space wolves aren't your cup of tea and basicly responding to a psot where someone mentions they play space wolves with basicly an insult.

To be fair, while santa sleigh and wolfwolf riders are just bad, the faction kinda jumped the shark with wolfballerinas with claws made out of ice (that somehow cut better than adamantium ones) and that hideous garbage of a dreadnought that bites people to death with his exposed head...

 Irbis wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:
However, reading the page, what makes you think BA can't use it? The Pick a Space Marines Detachment?

Yes, along with the FAQ that states...

Q: Is a Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves or Deathwatch Detachment also a Space Marines Detachment?
A: No. As defined in Codex: Space Marines, a Space Marines Detachment is a Detachment that only includes units with one of the following Faction keywords:
<Chapter>, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, White Scars, Raven Guard, Iron Hands, Crimson Fists or Black Templars.

Funnily enough, this means Blood Ravens are not space marines

Replace <Chapter> with Blood Ravens.

Look, I know the rules are spread across a few sources but this complete lack of knowledge is unbecoming.

Lemondish wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:
However, reading the page, what makes you think BA can't use it? The Pick a Space Marines Detachment?

Yes, along with the FAQ that states...

Q: Is a Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves or Deathwatch Detachment also a Space Marines Detachment?
A: No. As defined in Codex: Space Marines, a Space Marines Detachment is a Detachment that only includes units with one of the following Faction keywords:
<Chapter>, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, White Scars, Raven Guard, Iron Hands, Crimson Fists or Black Templars.

Funnily enough, this means Blood Ravens are not space marines

Replace <Chapter> with Blood Ravens.

Look, I know the rules are spread across a few sources but this complete lack of knowledge is unbecoming.

Right, but models that don't have <CHAPTER> and have BLOOD RAVENS on their datasheet (ie Gabriel) are not Space Marines, RAW. So technically if you run Gabriel Angelos then you do not have a Space Marine detachment.

Yeah, it's stupid. Yeah, no one will actually play it like that. But it would be nice if we got an FAQ.

The blood-themed stuff is stupid as well, but they actually removed some of it since 5th. (Along with BA ability to you know, be a threat) For the wolves, they have triple and quadruple downed on the wolf theme.

 Irbis wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I agree with the sentiment behind Martel because Space Wolves lore and fluff is by far the most Marty Stu crap that's ever been done. People like to get on the Ultramarines for this but think about what it means to be the best shining example vs the Space Wolves getting away with ANYTHING.

sure but there's a differance between saying the space wolves aren't your cup of tea and basicly responding to a psot where someone mentions they play space wolves with basicly an insult.

To be fair, while santa sleigh and wolfwolf riders are just bad, the faction kinda jumped the shark with wolfballerinas with claws made out of ice (that somehow cut better than adamantium ones) and that hideous garbage of a dreadnought that bites people to death with his exposed head...

Models can be done another way, so I don't care about that. I care about the atrocious fluff.

 Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:
However, reading the page, what makes you think BA can't use it? The Pick a Space Marines Detachment?

Yes, along with the FAQ that states...

Q: Is a Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves or Deathwatch Detachment also a Space Marines Detachment?
A: No. As defined in Codex: Space Marines, a Space Marines Detachment is a Detachment that only includes units with one of the following Faction keywords:
<Chapter>, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, White Scars, Raven Guard, Iron Hands, Crimson Fists or Black Templars.

Funnily enough, this means Blood Ravens are not space marines

Replace <Chapter> with Blood Ravens.

Look, I know the rules are spread across a few sources but this complete lack of knowledge is unbecoming.

Right, but models that don't have <CHAPTER> and have BLOOD RAVENS on their datasheet (ie Gabriel) are not Space Marines, RAW. So technically if you run Gabriel Angelos then you do not have a Space Marine detachment.

Yeah, it's stupid. Yeah, no one will actually play it like that. But it would be nice if we got an FAQ.

That is the most flamebait rules lawyering I have ever heard, and that's saying something given the nature of this place.

Lemondish wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:
However, reading the page, what makes you think BA can't use it? The Pick a Space Marines Detachment?

Yes, along with the FAQ that states...

Q: Is a Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves or Deathwatch Detachment also a Space Marines Detachment?
A: No. As defined in Codex: Space Marines, a Space Marines Detachment is a Detachment that only includes units with one of the following Faction keywords:
<Chapter>, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, White Scars, Raven Guard, Iron Hands, Crimson Fists or Black Templars.

Funnily enough, this means Blood Ravens are not space marines

Replace <Chapter> with Blood Ravens.

Look, I know the rules are spread across a few sources but this complete lack of knowledge is unbecoming.

Right, but models that don't have <CHAPTER> and have BLOOD RAVENS on their datasheet (ie Gabriel) are not Space Marines, RAW. So technically if you run Gabriel Angelos then you do not have a Space Marine detachment.

Yeah, it's stupid. Yeah, no one will actually play it like that. But it would be nice if we got an FAQ.

That is the most flamebait rules lawyering I have ever heard, and that's saying something given the nature of this place.

It's just poorly written rules. As I say, no one will play it that way, but it simply is what the rules say.

Lemondish wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:
However, reading the page, what makes you think BA can't use it? The Pick a Space Marines Detachment?

Yes, along with the FAQ that states...

Q: Is a Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves or Deathwatch Detachment also a Space Marines Detachment?
A: No. As defined in Codex: Space Marines, a Space Marines Detachment is a Detachment that only includes units with one of the following Faction keywords:
<Chapter>, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, White Scars, Raven Guard, Iron Hands, Crimson Fists or Black Templars.

Funnily enough, this means Blood Ravens are not space marines

Replace <Chapter> with Blood Ravens.

Look, I know the rules are spread across a few sources but this complete lack of knowledge is unbecoming.

Right, but models that don't have <CHAPTER> and have BLOOD RAVENS on their datasheet (ie Gabriel) are not Space Marines, RAW. So technically if you run Gabriel Angelos then you do not have a Space Marine detachment.

Yeah, it's stupid. Yeah, no one will actually play it like that. But it would be nice if we got an FAQ.

That is the most flamebait rules lawyering I have ever heard, and that's saying something given the nature of this place.

Is it incorrect though?

It leads to an absurd result, so its wrong.

Martel732 wrote:
It leads to an absurd result, so its wrong.

That wasn't the question.

Everytime anything comes out this same thing happens and this is why I support a consolidation of the marine books to stop things like this.

Lemondish wrote:
Look, I know the rules are spread across a few sources but this complete lack of knowledge is unbecoming.

Yes, your laughable lack of knowledge (which you try to mask with ad personam insults with zero actual arguments on both forums) is both tiring and unbecoming. Maybe do read the rules, especially before you go into your default "you guys are waac SUXXX lolll" mode every time anyone says they would like the rules of say blood ravens or reivers or primaris officers to be balanced with other options so that they are worth using (I repeat, worth using, not your imaginary 'best thing ever' that was literally said by no one)?

And I like how you apparently crawl after my posts everywhere in three different places now throwing snide insults from behind the corner despite me giving up correcting your fallacies long time ago. Is that your new hobby or something? PS. prepared that debunk of my math you promised 8 moths ago or was that just pure huff and puff supported by no substance after you lost argument yet again?

Martel732 wrote:
It leads to an absurd result, so its wrong.

I do sort of agree with this. RAW that no one follows is effectively not a rule. But it is worth noting the difference between RAW and rules consensus when they differ.

Its how real law works, so it seems applicable to gws gak show.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It leads to an absurd result, so its wrong.

That wasn't the question.

Nevertheless, its the answer.

Martel732 wrote:
Its how real law works, so it seems applicable to gws gak show.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It leads to an absurd result, so its wrong.

That wasn't the question.

Nevertheless, its the answer.

No, saying that "what's written is stupid" is not an answer. The question was, as written, do Blood Ravens count?

Answer that, please, instead of throwing out your opinion.