Yes...Titan level units seem to have been nerfed a bit...considering you can shoot them through walls and they cant shoot back - a lot of them went down in points though. Executioner went up. 375 for an executioner is flat out absurd. So the point remains - Gravis is a little undercosted but all their transports are madly overcosted. The net result is short ranged slow infantry aren't that great.
Just to be clear - you can shoot them through walls....if you can see them.
I think he's referring to Obscuring terrain, specifically.
Right. You still have to be able to see the model to shoot through it. So if you have a 1 foot tall 3 foot wide block of styrofoam in the middle of the table, Obscuring rule does not make you able to shoot an 18+ wound model through that wall.
Ok fine, but how often do you see giant, solid pieces of terrain like that on the table? The terrain providing the infantry-can-shoot-at-Titanic-unit-that-can't-shoot-back scenario is waaaay more common.
Infantry being able to fire at super heavys through obscuring terrain isn't the problem. The idea of relatively small troops hiding in cover to ambush heavy armour with anti-tank weapons makes sense. The problem is that the obscuring rule allows something like the aforementioned executioner to hide behind the same piece of terrain and freely target that super heavy with its heavy 2, S10, AP -4, D d3-6 weapon. That rule shouldn't apply to vehicles. Obscuring should be LOS blocking for vehicles on both sides, regardless of wounds.
Ahh, I see. Ok that's a more reasonable issue. I guess I consider most vehicles to be pretty big, and I'd think the Titanic unit would be able to shuffle to the side a bit in order to draw LOS to some point on the hull. Then again, lots of infantry units have big footprints, too.
I think the idea is that it can still be tricky to draw a bead on many vehicles in dense terrain, and that there is a certain size where that's just no longer viable. That makes sense to me. I also think for the sake of gameplay involving traditionally sized vehicles, the rules as they are wind up being better, and the game should be designed around infantry and non-Titanic vehicles at the core. The fact that theres a bit of wonkiness around superheavies is acceptable in that context.
The issue isn't that super heavys can be targeted through obscuring terrain, like I said, it makes sense for infantry. It's that they can be targeted through obscuring terrain by other vehicles. We're talking about a tank sniping through a window (or some other gap in the terrain) at another tank. That's some serious accuracy from some very big guns. It also brings up the issue of size. Compare an executioner to a Spartan, or better yet, a standard Land Raider to an Achilles. One can be shot by other vehicles, the other can't. How is a Land Raider Achilles easier to spot than a standard Land Raider?
Jidmah wrote: Because FW rules have never made sense and don't suddenly start doing so in 9th?
That has nothing to do with FW rules.
Here's another example:
My keeper of secrets (16 wounds) can whip a Great Unclean One (18 wounds) through obscuring terrain (say, a tiny window by her hoof), but the GUO cannot vomit back, even if the entire upper torso of my taller Keeper of Secrets is poking over the terrain.
Yes...Titan level units seem to have been nerfed a bit...considering you can shoot them through walls and they cant shoot back - a lot of them went down in points though. Executioner went up. 375 for an executioner is flat out absurd. So the point remains - Gravis is a little undercosted but all their transports are madly overcosted. The net result is short ranged slow infantry aren't that great.
Just to be clear - you can shoot them through walls....if you can see them.
I think he's referring to Obscuring terrain, specifically.
Right. You still have to be able to see the model to shoot through it. So if you have a 1 foot tall 3 foot wide block of styrofoam in the middle of the table, Obscuring rule does not make you able to shoot an 18+ wound model through that wall.
Ok fine, but how often do you see giant, solid pieces of terrain like that on the table? The terrain providing the infantry-can-shoot-at-Titanic-unit-that-can't-shoot-back scenario is waaaay more common.
Infantry being able to fire at super heavys through obscuring terrain isn't the problem. The idea of relatively small troops hiding in cover to ambush heavy armour with anti-tank weapons makes sense. The problem is that the obscuring rule allows something like the aforementioned executioner to hide behind the same piece of terrain and freely target that super heavy with its heavy 2, S10, AP -4, D d3-6 weapon. That rule shouldn't apply to vehicles. Obscuring should be LOS blocking for vehicles on both sides, regardless of wounds.
Ahh, I see. Ok that's a more reasonable issue. I guess I consider most vehicles to be pretty big, and I'd think the Titanic unit would be able to shuffle to the side a bit in order to draw LOS to some point on the hull. Then again, lots of infantry units have big footprints, too.
I think the idea is that it can still be tricky to draw a bead on many vehicles in dense terrain, and that there is a certain size where that's just no longer viable. That makes sense to me. I also think for the sake of gameplay involving traditionally sized vehicles, the rules as they are wind up being better, and the game should be designed around infantry and non-Titanic vehicles at the core. The fact that theres a bit of wonkiness around superheavies is acceptable in that context.
The issue isn't that super heavys can be targeted through obscuring terrain, like I said, it makes sense for infantry. It's that they can be targeted through obscuring terrain by other vehicles. We're talking about a tank sniping through a window (or some other gap in the terrain) at another tank. That's some serious accuracy from some very big guns. It also brings up the issue of size. Compare an executioner to a Spartan, or better yet, a standard Land Raider to an Achilles. One can be shot by other vehicles, the other can't. How is a Land Raider Achilles easier to spot than a standard Land Raider?
Oh I get you. I just think that if vehicles didn't get the benefits of Obscuring we'd just be back to 8th in terms of table-commanding LOS. If we want vehicle maneuvering to be meaningful, Obscuring is good.
Is the wound cutoff great? Maybe not. The Land Raider vs. Achilles scenario is not great. Maybe there's a better way to do it. My point is that the game should be balanced around infantry and most vehicles, and Obscuring works for that. I also think the actual terrain you're using will have a big effect on how the rule feels. The fact that bigger units are, in general, harder to hide is fine with me. As for tank accuracy? I'm ok with that too. If a tank can accurately engage something a kilometer or more away, I'd figure it could shoot through a window that's much closer.
Jidmah wrote: Because FW rules have never made sense and don't suddenly start doing so in 9th?
That has nothing to do with FW rules.
Here's another example:
My keeper of secrets (16 wounds) can whip a Great Unclean One (18 wounds) through obscuring terrain (say, a tiny window by her hoof), but the GUO cannot vomit back, even if the entire upper torso of my taller Keeper of Secrets is poking over the terrain.
See, I'm actually ok with that example since a GUO is a much wider target with more predictable movement. I know it's awkward, rules wise, but you gotta have the cutoff somewhere. Maybe 20 W would have been better? I'm not too familiar with most high W models.
Jidmah wrote: Because FW rules have never made sense and don't suddenly start doing so in 9th?
That has nothing to do with FW rules.
Here's another example:
My keeper of secrets (16 wounds) can whip a Great Unclean One (18 wounds) through obscuring terrain (say, a tiny window by her hoof), but the GUO cannot vomit back, even if the entire upper torso of my taller Keeper of Secrets is poking over the terrain.
"Your greater daemon is so fat, it can't be hidden by obscuring terrain?"
Terrain rules are clearly an abstraction, and abstractions are going to have weird edge cases. If the wound rule didn't exist we would have morkanauts hiding out of sight behind a tiny ruin.
Last edition we had "real" terrain and everybody hated it because the vast majority of terrain simply can't hide gak.
Jidmah wrote: Because FW rules have never made sense and don't suddenly start doing so in 9th?
That has nothing to do with FW rules.
Here's another example:
My keeper of secrets (16 wounds) can whip a Great Unclean One (18 wounds) through obscuring terrain (say, a tiny window by her hoof), but the GUO cannot vomit back, even if the entire upper torso of my taller Keeper of Secrets is poking over the terrain.
"Your greater daemon is so fat, it can't be hidden by obscuring terrain?"
Terrain rules are clearly an abstraction, and abstractions are going to have weird edge cases. If the wound rule didn't exist we would have morkanauts hiding out of sight behind a tiny ruin. Last edition we had "real" terrain and everybody hated it because the vast majority of terrain simply can't hide gak.
Here's a few abstractions that make far far more sense: Obscuring terrain blocks LOS categorically without some cutoff or, if you think vehicles or monsters should be seen, then: Obscuring terrain does not prevent Monsters or Vehicles from being seen by other Monsters or Vehicles. If your only concern is with big stuff, then: Obscuring terrain does not obscure line of sight to Titanic units if they can be seen behind it normally.
I think I might need to go home early today, that took loads of effort.
Jidmah wrote: Because FW rules have never made sense and don't suddenly start doing so in 9th?
That has nothing to do with FW rules.
Here's another example:
My keeper of secrets (16 wounds) can whip a Great Unclean One (18 wounds) through obscuring terrain (say, a tiny window by her hoof), but the GUO cannot vomit back, even if the entire upper torso of my taller Keeper of Secrets is poking over the terrain.
"Your greater daemon is so fat, it can't be hidden by obscuring terrain?"
Terrain rules are clearly an abstraction, and abstractions are going to have weird edge cases. If the wound rule didn't exist we would have morkanauts hiding out of sight behind a tiny ruin.
Last edition we had "real" terrain and everybody hated it because the vast majority of terrain simply can't hide gak.
No, you wouldn't. If the terrain piece is too small to cover the Morkanaught it could still be targeted. Obscuring should simply serve to fill in any "holes" in the terrain. It should stop you shooting things through windows, which is what it basically does, just not for anything with 18+ wounds, regardless of whether or not it can actually fit behind the terrain.
Obscuring terrain does not obscure line of sight to Titanic units if they can be seen behind it normally.
I mean, that basically is the rule except the cutoff is Wounds not the keyword Titanic.
Right. So you get weird gak like the Malcador behing unable to hide behind terrain as well as a Russ (despite being practically identical save a couple inches of length), or a Great Unclean One being less able to hide behind terrain than a gigantic flying angry Bloodthirster. Or a Land Raider Achilles being unable to hide from a Land Raider.
Obscuring terrain does not obscure line of sight to Titanic units if they can be seen behind it normally.
I mean, that basically is the rule except the cutoff is Wounds not the keyword Titanic.
Right. So you get weird gak like the Malcador behing unable to hide behind terrain as well as a Russ (despite being practically identical save a couple inches of length), or a Great Unclean One being less able to hide behind terrain than a gigantic flying angry Bloodthirster. Or a Land Raider Achilles being unable to hide from a Land Raider.
Like I said, the Great Unclean one I'm fine with. Honestly? I sorta don't care about the FW stuff.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Here's a few abstractions that make far far more sense:
Obscuring terrain blocks LOS categorically without some cutoff or, if you think vehicles or monsters should be seen, then:
Obscuring terrain does not prevent Monsters or Vehicles from being seen by other Monsters or Vehicles. If your only concern is with big stuff, then:
Obscuring terrain does not obscure line of sight to Titanic units if they can be seen behind it normally.
I think I might need to go home early today, that took loads of effort.
I apologize for luring you into this trap, but your suggestion actually doesn't work for the morkanaut. It would still completely be hidden from sight by this tiny ruin:
Spoiler:
But don't worry, you are not the only one who forgot that the nauts actually aren't TITANIC models - GW clearly forgot it as well.
Obscuring terrain does not obscure line of sight to Titanic units if they can be seen behind it normally.
I mean, that basically is the rule except the cutoff is Wounds not the keyword Titanic.
Right. So you get weird gak like the Malcador behing unable to hide behind terrain as well as a Russ (despite being practically identical save a couple inches of length), or a Great Unclean One being less able to hide behind terrain than a gigantic flying angry Bloodthirster. Or a Land Raider Achilles being unable to hide from a Land Raider.
Like I said, the Great Unclean one I'm fine with. Honestly? I sorta don't care about the FW stuff.
But I'm be open to a different Wound cutoff, too.
Why aren't you open to a keyword cutoff, instead? A wound cutoff will never make sense, until there is a formalized relationship between Wounds and Size, which itself doesn't make sense (a tank with more wounds isn't necessarily bigger than a tank with fewer wounds; it simply is more durable).
Essentially, what GW has done is they've used Wounds to mean both Durability of a model, and Size of a model, which essentially is saying "Size = Durability". Therefore, I can conclude that a T-64 is far easier to kill than a T-35 since it's much much smaller if you don't include the gun barrel length. I bet you won't guess which tank I'd rather be on if a missile comes over the horizon though...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Which is why a size stat is something that should've been implemented a while ago so we don't have these recurring issues.
Or, if it fits behind the terrain, you can't shoot it. I'm fine with super heavys not benefiting from dense cover, that makes sense, but a 16 wound tank shouldn't be sniping 18+ wound tanks through windows. Infantry, yes, because they can actually lean out of the window and take aim, but not vehicles.
Obscuring terrain does not obscure line of sight to Titanic units if they can be seen behind it normally.
I mean, that basically is the rule except the cutoff is Wounds not the keyword Titanic.
Right. So you get weird gak like the Malcador behing unable to hide behind terrain as well as a Russ (despite being practically identical save a couple inches of length), or a Great Unclean One being less able to hide behind terrain than a gigantic flying angry Bloodthirster. Or a Land Raider Achilles being unable to hide from a Land Raider.
Like I said, the Great Unclean one I'm fine with. Honestly? I sorta don't care about the FW stuff.
But I'm be open to a different Wound cutoff, too.
Why aren't you open to a keyword cutoff, instead?
That'd be fine too.
I'll bet you'll find some weird cases with that as well though, like the aforementioned Gorkanaut.
The terrain that you use is going to have a big effect, so you can mitigate some of this stuff. If your ruins or whatever don't have a huge footprint, you'll be able to sneak some LOS at a bunch of these units anyways.
Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.
Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).
The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.
Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).
The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.
Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.
Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).
The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.
Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.
because GW are bad game designers I have no idea but I'm sure they have their reasons.
To be fair as most of the things that are barred from shooting through but not barred from being shot at are in the 20 w or more range with High toughness it's not a relevant equation untill Marine AT is rebalanced again as so far they have Eradicators their new 2 shot potentially 16 wound multi Melta and frankly this widely touted Vehical meta is already dead. Titanic units would all have to see either buffed Toughness Values or wound counts or significant points decreased to be part of the meta any time soon.
So far the only vehicals I expect to see in 9th will be the lastest broken marine BS and laughably everyone else just swerving 9th untill marines are fixed.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.
Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).
The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.
Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.
because GW are bad game designers I have no idea but I'm sure they have their reasons.
Suspiciously, the cutoff is that of a Land Raider/Repulsor. They could have simply figured "anything bigger than a Land Raider" and called it a day.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.
Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).
The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.
Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.
because GW are bad game designers I have no idea but I'm sure they have their reasons.
Suspiciously, the cutoff is that of a Land Raider/Repulsor. They could have simply figured "anything bigger than a Land Raider" and called it a day.
But a malcador is smaller than a land raider, and I know you don't care but GW's design studio absolutely should not just be outright ignoring models in their own game when designing rules. Otherwise, they'd be bad game designers
But a malcador is smaller than a land raider, and I know you don't care but GW's design studio absolutely should not just be outright ignoring models in their own game when designing rules. Otherwise, they'd be bad game designers
I think my counter to that is; wtf is the Malcador doing running around with 18 wounds then? THAT also sounds a bit like bad game design. It's like a bigger Leman Russ, but not the size of a Land Raider. I would think 14 wounds would be more proper for a tank like that.
But a malcador is smaller than a land raider, and I know you don't care but GW's design studio absolutely should not just be outright ignoring models in their own game when designing rules. Otherwise, they'd be bad game designers
I think my counter to that is; wtf is the Malcador doing running around with 18 wounds then? THAT also sounds a bit like bad game design. It's like a bigger Leman Russ, but not the size of a Land Raider. I would think 14 wounds would be more proper for a tank like that.
Gaining durability through redundant internal systems and compartmentalization (wounds) rather than through armored protection (3+ save unlike the Land Raider). If that was FW's vision, why doesn't 18 wounds make sense? I can conceive of a tank with thinner armor than a Land Raider but with more internal bracings and improved system redundancy. I can also conceive of it being smaller, due to not needing a transport bay that can hold Terminators.
I don't think the Malcador's statline is unreasonable. I think the terrain rules are.
But a malcador is smaller than a land raider, and I know you don't care but GW's design studio absolutely should not just be outright ignoring models in their own game when designing rules. Otherwise, they'd be bad game designers
I think my counter to that is; wtf is the Malcador doing running around with 18 wounds then? THAT also sounds a bit like bad game design. It's like a bigger Leman Russ, but not the size of a Land Raider. I would think 14 wounds would be more proper for a tank like that.
Part of the issue was also caused by GW in GW in their infinite wisdom limiting Toughness values by making a Landraider T8 instead of the 10 it ahould have been.
Which would have given some more design space for light tanks transports and MBT's and SMBT's and TMBT's etc but nope wer are stuck trying to cram everything int the game into the 5 toughness values FFS.
Ice_can wrote: To be fair as most of the things that are barred from shooting through but not barred from being shot at are in the 20 w or more range with High toughness it's not a relevant equation untill Marine AT is rebalanced again as so far they have Eradicators their new 2 shot potentially 16 wound multi Melta and frankly this widely touted Vehical meta is already dead. Titanic units would all have to see either buffed Toughness Values or wound counts or significant points decreased to be part of the meta any time soon.
So far the only vehicals I expect to see in 9th will be the lastest broken marine BS and laughably everyone else just swerving 9th untill marines are fixed.
But a malcador is smaller than a land raider, and I know you don't care but GW's design studio absolutely should not just be outright ignoring models in their own game when designing rules. Otherwise, they'd be bad game designers
I think my counter to that is; wtf is the Malcador doing running around with 18 wounds then? THAT also sounds a bit like bad game design. It's like a bigger Leman Russ, but not the size of a Land Raider. I would think 14 wounds would be more proper for a tank like that.
Gaining durability through redundant internal systems and compartmentalization (wounds) rather than through armored protection (3+ save unlike the Land Raider). If that was FW's vision, why doesn't 18 wounds make sense? I can conceive of a tank with thinner armor than a Land Raider but with more internal bracings and improved system redundancy. I can also conceive of it being smaller, due to not needing a transport bay that can hold Terminators.
I don't think the Malcador's statline is unreasonable. I think the terrain rules are.
Ehhh. . . I dunno man. Given the revered nature of the technology and the status of the Land Raider, 18 Wounds for a special Leman Russ deployed in the Guard sounds a bit high to me.
But a malcador is smaller than a land raider, and I know you don't care but GW's design studio absolutely should not just be outright ignoring models in their own game when designing rules. Otherwise, they'd be bad game designers
I think my counter to that is; wtf is the Malcador doing running around with 18 wounds then? THAT also sounds a bit like bad game design. It's like a bigger Leman Russ, but not the size of a Land Raider. I would think 14 wounds would be more proper for a tank like that.
Part of the issue was also caused by GW in GW in their infinite wisdom limiting Toughness values by making a Landraider T8 instead of the 10 it ahould have been.
Which would have given some more design space for light tanks transports and MBT's and SMBT's and TMBT's etc but nope wer are stuck trying to cram everything int the game into the 5 toughness values FFS.
You know what the stupid part of that is? Bolters would still be wounding it on 6's. Imo the wound chart is more at fault in a lot of cases. T9 would have been great though.
Insectum7 wrote: Ehhh. . . I dunno man. Given the revered nature of the technology and the status of the Land Raider, 18 Wounds for a special Leman Russ deployed in the Guard sounds a bit high to me.
A special Leman Russ? It's a far, far more ancient design than the Leman Russ and arguably the Land Raider (since the Land Raider's provenance is unknown). Malcadors fought at the Eternity Gate in the HH, and were used in the Unification Wars on Terra. Just because you don't think it's revered doesn't mean it isn't.
It's far older than the Russ, and far higher tech - in fact, so high-tech that the Adeptus Mechanicus has forgotten altogether how to make the engine and drive-train, which is why it no longer has energy shields or a blisteringly high speed (the Fast special rule) like it does in the HH game.
All this talk is useless.
Apparently GW has decided that eradicators are fine and all the new AT models, both SM and Necron, are much more efficient than the previous ones, so tanks and monsters are out of the game.
9th edition is infantry hammer now.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.
Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).
The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.
Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.
To hit the Daemon Primarchs, obviously. Along with the aforementioned Morkanaughts and Gorkanaughts.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.
Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).
The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.
Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.
To hit the Daemon Primarchs, obviously. Along with the aforementioned Morkanaughts and Gorkanaughts.
Why? And why couldn't they just have gotten the Titanic keyword?
Insectum7 wrote: Ehhh. . . I dunno man. Given the revered nature of the technology and the status of the Land Raider, 18 Wounds for a special Leman Russ deployed in the Guard sounds a bit high to me.
A special Leman Russ? It's a far, far more ancient design than the Leman Russ and arguably the Land Raider (since the Land Raider's provenance is unknown). Malcadors fought at the Eternity Gate in the HH, and were used in the Unification Wars on Terra. Just because you don't think it's revered doesn't mean it isn't.
It's far older than the Russ, and far higher tech - in fact, so high-tech that the Adeptus Mechanicus has forgotten altogether how to make the engine and drive-train, which is why it no longer has energy shields or a blisteringly high speed (the Fast special rule) like it does in the HH game.
Ok, fine. But it's also noted (looking at Lexicanum) as having less armor than a Land Raider, and like you've said, it's also smaller. It also says the drive system is tempermental, which doesn't sound like the sort of thing that has built-in redundancies would have an issue with. 18 wounds still seems like a lot to me.
And honestly? This is the sort of FW unit I just don't care about. It's older than the Land Raider! It's higher tech! It's fast because of it's super special engine and protected by a force field that isn't made anymore and and and. . . It's like when I look at the Batman Issadon rules and I can't help but do an eye-roll. If you want to use FW that's fine, but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that some of the FW units wind up interacting in funky ways with the core rules.
I want to emphasize that those things are how it *was* not *is*.
And the reason the drive train is temperamental is no one remembers how it works. Current 40k rules it is as slow as a Russ and has no shield.
And I also never said it had more armor. In fact, I said it had less (and even said that is why it has a 3+ save)
Internal bracing won't help the drive train, and redundancies can be present in systems like the hydraulics, electronics, viewports, etc.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.
Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).
The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.
Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.
To hit the Daemon Primarchs, obviously. Along with the aforementioned Morkanaughts and Gorkanaughts.
Why? And why couldn't they just have gotten the Titanic keyword?
Because gw only considers something TITANIC if it has 20+ wounds. Why? Ask them. This rule seems to be targeted at anything gw considers "too big", not stuff with the TITANIC keyword or even LOWs.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.
Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).
The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.
Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.
To hit the Daemon Primarchs, obviously. Along with the aforementioned Morkanaughts and Gorkanaughts.
Why? And why couldn't they just have gotten the Titanic keyword?
Because gw only considers something TITANIC if it has 20+ wounds. Why? Ask them. This rule seems to be targeted at anything gw considers "too big", not stuff with the TITANIC keyword or even LOWs.
GW is bad at game design weird I can't imagine why a keyword would have anything to do with the wounds of a model.
And haha at the rule being 'targeted'. If you want to target something specific, you don't catch GUO and Malcadors with a sweeping change. You just give those units a rule that they can't be obscured.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.
Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).
The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.
Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.
To hit the Daemon Primarchs, obviously. Along with the aforementioned Morkanaughts and Gorkanaughts.
Why? And why couldn't they just have gotten the Titanic keyword?
Because then Morkanauts would be able to fall back and shoot just like they could in 8th. Orks can't have nice things.
Spoletta wrote: All this talk is useless.
Apparently GW has decided that eradicators are fine and all the new AT models, both SM and Necron, are much more efficient than the previous ones, so tanks and monsters are out of the game.
9th edition is infantry hammer now.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.
Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).
The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.
Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.
To hit the Daemon Primarchs, obviously. Along with the aforementioned Morkanaughts and Gorkanaughts.
Why? And why couldn't they just have gotten the Titanic keyword?
Because then Morkanauts would be able to fall back and shoot just like they could in 8th. Orks can't have nice things.
Big'n'Stompy doesn't still let them do that? Did I miss that in the FAQ?
Big'n'Stompy received the same errate as all the other knight-equivalents and mega-tanks. Except all those are TITANIC which now inherently allows them to fall back and shoot.
Jidmah wrote: Big'n'Stompy received the same errate as all the other knight-equivalents and mega-tanks. Except all those are TITANIC which now inherently allows them to fall back and shoot.
So they can't do that anymore? But still get the same disadvantage of being sniped through windows by stuff they can't shoot back at. That sucks. Gw really had it in for Orks this time around.
Jidmah wrote: Big'n'Stompy received the same errate as all the other knight-equivalents and mega-tanks. Except all those are TITANIC which now inherently allows them to fall back and shoot.
So they can't do that anymore? But still get the same disadvantage of being sniped through windows by stuff they can't shoot back at. That sucks. Gw really had it in for Orks this time around.
Insectum7 wrote: Ehhh. . . I dunno man. Given the revered nature of the technology and the status of the Land Raider, 18 Wounds for a special Leman Russ deployed in the Guard sounds a bit high to me.
A special Leman Russ? It's a far, far more ancient design than the Leman Russ and arguably the Land Raider (since the Land Raider's provenance is unknown). Malcadors fought at the Eternity Gate in the HH, and were used in the Unification Wars on Terra. Just because you don't think it's revered doesn't mean it isn't.
It's far older than the Russ, and far higher tech - in fact, so high-tech that the Adeptus Mechanicus has forgotten altogether how to make the engine and drive-train, which is why it no longer has energy shields or a blisteringly high speed (the Fast special rule) like it does in the HH game.
Ok, fine. But it's also noted (looking at Lexicanum) as having less armor than a Land Raider, and like you've said, it's also smaller. It also says the drive system is tempermental, which doesn't sound like the sort of thing that has built-in redundancies would have an issue with. 18 wounds still seems like a lot to me.
And honestly? This is the sort of FW unit I just don't care about. It's older than the Land Raider! It's higher tech! It's fast because of it's super special engine and protected by a force field that isn't made anymore and and and. . . It's like when I look at the Batman Issadon rules and I can't help but do an eye-roll. If you want to use FW that's fine, but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that some of the FW units wind up interacting in funky ways with the core rules.
I can't really speak for HH, but flare shields are a pretty common vehicle upgrades (it's not even standard equipment) and the tank isn't especially fast, it just can shoot its main gun at full BS when it moves flat-out (the HH equivalent of advance), in fact, the lore reason is the same as LR's grinding advance. And while I am talking about lore I don't know where you are getting the bit about its drive system being temperamental or it being fast, the HH books state the exact opposite. EDIT: I checked Lexicanum and it is also right; I don't know what source you used, but FW certainly isn't to blame.
Sub-atomantic Reactor
The Malcador assault tanks found in the armouries of the Space Marine Legions are the oldest of their kind still in service, relics manufactured on Terra using facilities dating back to the Age of Strife. While hugely reliable, their power plants —hybrid reactor/combustor engine cores— lack the power of those found on the larger and more powerful war machines that largely replaced them in service. When rolling on the Tunderblitz and/or Catastrophic Damage tables for the Malcador, roll 2D6 and select the lower result.
In 40k, the Malcador is supposed to fall somewhere between a Russ and a Baneblade (obviously), but since it has the same amount of guns as Russ, and they don't want to do the extra work of making a special rule to buff its damage (like a different battle cannon variant), the only other option is to increase its wounds and they chose to do that in the simplest way possible, +50% wounds and +50% cost over the Russ.
Spoletta wrote: All this talk is useless.
Apparently GW has decided that eradicators are fine and all the new AT models, both SM and Necron, are much more efficient than the previous ones, so tanks and monsters are out of the game.
9th edition is infantry hammer now.
Wat?
Bit short sighted but the logic will be cheap efficient anti armour is available = less tanks and monsters who are wiped out with higher efficiency or rather they get less impact on the game. People then stop taking them due to their inefficient state compared to what kills them, this promotes more infantry, people then have wasted anti armour units, those dissappear to take more anti horde, infantry suffers from meta building so people take tanks and monsters. The cycle is then complete where all options work.
Jidmah wrote: Big'n'Stompy received the same errate as all the other knight-equivalents and mega-tanks. Except all those are TITANIC which now inherently allows them to fall back and shoot.
So they can't do that anymore? But still get the same disadvantage of being sniped through windows by stuff they can't shoot back at. That sucks. Gw really had it in for Orks this time around.
my gut feeling is thats not intended.
I think you may be right. It looks like gw was a bit haphazard when rewriting the various fallback and shoot/charge rules for some of the bigger models. The Steel Behemoth rule for super heavy tanks has also been reworded oddly, as previously they could fire into/out of cc at full ballistic skill, now since they rely on the Big Guns Never Tire rule to fire into combat it would appear they do so at -1 for heavy weapons, which is 99% of what they are armed with. Probably should send some emails to gw about this.
In GW's defence - they don't care. They made some models, they want those models to sell. Double shooting meltas? Sure, why not? Space Marines stronger than Custodes - sounds a great seller. That ATV bike (depending on points) is going to be awesome. In contrast, the new Necron units are a bit "meh" and for good reason. You don't want your new and fresh cash-cow marine players getting disillusioned by their primary opponent having something better than them.
You think they are good now? Wait until the multi-part kits come out. In my experience, the multi-part kits always come with an option that is better than what comes in the standard box - otherwise why would anyone pay a premium for the multi-part set? Never fear however, GW will have made all the newer updates more powerful up until 2 years time when they release a load of new Primaris models and buff the army again.
"Don't fight it. Buy Primaris today." - GW Slogan since 2018
Sumilidon wrote: In GW's defence - they don't care. They made some models, they want those models to sell. Double shooting meltas? Sure, why not? Space Marines stronger than Custodes - sounds a great seller. That ATV bike (depending on points) is going to be awesome. In contrast, the new Necron units are a bit "meh" and for good reason. You don't want your new and fresh cash-cow marine players getting disillusioned by their primary opponent having something better than them.
Because you invest millions into salaries, production facilities, warehouses, logistics, your own brick&mortar stores to release a new product that is less attractive on purpose. That makes sense. You contradict yourself within two sentences. Do they want to sell the new Necrons or not? Do you think it increases sales numbers to make them weaker on purpose? Without proof at hand for it, I bet my sweet little bum that Marines sell regardless of rules. They are just that popular.
Sumilidon wrote: You think they are good now? Wait until the multi-part kits come out. In my experience, the multi-part kits always come with an option that is better than what comes in the standard box - otherwise why would anyone pay a premium for the multi-part set? Never fear however, GW will have made all the newer updates more powerful up until 2 years time when they release a load of new Primaris models and buff the army again.
"Don't fight it. Buy Primaris today." - GW Slogan since 2018
This has been proven to be wrong multiple times. New does not mean better or even good.
Take a step back friend, your emotions are clouding your view.
Insectum7 wrote: Ehhh. . . I dunno man. Given the revered nature of the technology and the status of the Land Raider, 18 Wounds for a special Leman Russ deployed in the Guard sounds a bit high to me.
A special Leman Russ? It's a far, far more ancient design than the Leman Russ and arguably the Land Raider (since the Land Raider's provenance is unknown). Malcadors fought at the Eternity Gate in the HH, and were used in the Unification Wars on Terra. Just because you don't think it's revered doesn't mean it isn't.
It's far older than the Russ, and far higher tech - in fact, so high-tech that the Adeptus Mechanicus has forgotten altogether how to make the engine and drive-train, which is why it no longer has energy shields or a blisteringly high speed (the Fast special rule) like it does in the HH game.
Ok, fine. But it's also noted (looking at Lexicanum) as having less armor than a Land Raider, and like you've said, it's also smaller. It also says the drive system is tempermental, which doesn't sound like the sort of thing that has built-in redundancies would have an issue with. 18 wounds still seems like a lot to me.
And honestly? This is the sort of FW unit I just don't care about. It's older than the Land Raider! It's higher tech! It's fast because of it's super special engine and protected by a force field that isn't made anymore and and and. . . It's like when I look at the Batman Issadon rules and I can't help but do an eye-roll. If you want to use FW that's fine, but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that some of the FW units wind up interacting in funky ways with the core rules.
I can't really speak for HH, but flare shields are a pretty common vehicle upgrades (it's not even standard equipment) and the tank isn't especially fast,
Flare shields are not common. In fact, a Land Raider cannot take them, which is the vehicle in question with which the Malcador is being compared. As for fast, the Malcador in the Solar Auxilia and Imperialis Militia army lists has the FAST special rule, and the legion one can fire its main gun after going Flat Out. That means it can go 18" a turn and fire, faster than any other tank in the game that isn't a skimmer.
Eipi10 wrote: it just can shoot its main gun at full BS when it moves flat-out (the HH equivalent of advance), in fact, the lore reason is the same as LR's grinding advance.
No it isn't. The Leman Russ can only fire at Combat Speed in HH (out side of a once-per-game ability available only to one type of tank in the Solar Auxilia, which lets them go 12" and shoot. Still slower than the Malcador), which is 6". There's definitely a speed difference (and lore difference) between 6 and 18 inches in a turn while still being able to engage targets with the main armament.
Eipi10 wrote: And while I am talking about lore I don't know where you are getting the bit about its drive system being temperamental or it being fast, the HH books state the exact opposite. EDIT: I checked Lexicanum and it is also right; I don't know what source you used, but FW certainly isn't to blame.
Sub-atomantic Reactor The Malcador assault tanks found in the armouries of the Space Marine Legions are the oldest of their kind still in service, relics manufactured on Terra using facilities dating back to the Age of Strife. While hugely reliable, their power plants —hybrid reactor/combustor engine cores— lack the power of those found on the larger and more powerful war machines that largely replaced them in service. When rolling on the Tunderblitz and/or Catastrophic Damage tables for the Malcador, roll 2D6 and select the lower result.
You're confusing 30k with 40k Malcadors. In 30k, the Malcador is faster than any other tank (see above) while still being able to fire its gun. In 40k, it's drive system is temperamental because the AdMech have forgotten how to build it. Check out the rules in Imperial Armor Volume 1: Second Edition, for example.
Eipi10 wrote: In 40k, the Malcador is supposed to fall somewhere between a Russ and a Baneblade (obviously), but since it has the same amount of guns as Russ, and they don't want to do the extra work of making a special rule to buff its damage (like a different battle cannon variant), the only other option is to increase its wounds and they chose to do that in the simplest way possible, +50% wounds and +50% cost over the Russ.
Yes...Titan level units seem to have been nerfed a bit...considering you can shoot them through walls and they cant shoot back - a lot of them went down in points though. Executioner went up. 375 for an executioner is flat out absurd. So the point remains - Gravis is a little undercosted but all their transports are madly overcosted. The net result is short ranged slow infantry aren't that great.
Just to be clear - you can shoot them through walls....if you can see them.
Yes indeed. Basically Titan level models are playing with 8th eddition LOS rules against them while following the 9th edition rules against what they shoot. It is pretty obvious how abuse-able this will be. To the point this rule basically invalidates any titanic shooting unit. It was nearly impossible to hide a titan out of LOS in 8th edition.
But a malcador is smaller than a land raider, and I know you don't care but GW's design studio absolutely should not just be outright ignoring models in their own game when designing rules. Otherwise, they'd be bad game designers
I think my counter to that is; wtf is the Malcador doing running around with 18 wounds then? THAT also sounds a bit like bad game design. It's like a bigger Leman Russ, but not the size of a Land Raider. I would think 14 wounds would be more proper for a tank like that.
Part of the issue was also caused by GW in GW in their infinite wisdom limiting Toughness values by making a Landraider T8 instead of the 10 it ahould have been.
Which would have given some more design space for light tanks transports and MBT's and SMBT's and TMBT's etc but nope wer are stuck trying to cram everything int the game into the 5 toughness values FFS.
Indeed. Making LR/Repulsors a proper t10 would fix their lack of invune problem.
Remember when the big complaint about all the dedicated AT guns was that they payed for AP that they almost never got to use because all the good vehicles had invuln saves, so the guns that actually got the AT work done were the mid-damage multi-shot weapons? And how much that hurt Marines since the guns everyone took to do AT work were also casually good at ripping up elite infantry and no-invuln-save Marine vehicles?
The Newman wrote: Remember when the big complaint about all the dedicated AT guns was that they payed for AP that they almost never got to use because all the good vehicles had invuln saves, so the guns that actually got the AT work done were the mid-damage multi-shot weapons? And how much that hurt Marines since the guns everyone took to do AT work were also casually good at ripping up elite infantry and no-invuln-save Marine vehicles?
Good times, good times.
The fundamental problem with AT weapons/armoured vehicles (math errors during the 8e Indexes that led to vehicles having too few wounds and AT weapons not doing enough damage, so spammable crossover weapons (plasma) is better AT than dedicated AT) hasn't changed.
The Newman wrote: Remember when the big complaint about all the dedicated AT guns was that they payed for AP that they almost never got to use because all the good vehicles had invuln saves, so the guns that actually got the AT work done were the mid-damage multi-shot weapons? And how much that hurt Marines since the guns everyone took to do AT work were also casually good at ripping up elite infantry and no-invuln-save Marine vehicles?
Good times, good times.
The fundamental problem with AT weapons/armoured vehicles (math errors during the 8e Indexes that led to vehicles having too few wounds and AT weapons not doing enough damage, so spammable crossover weapons (plasma) is better AT than dedicated AT) hasn't changed.
Sumilidon wrote: In GW's defence - they don't care. They made some models, they want those models to sell. Double shooting meltas? Sure, why not? Space Marines stronger than Custodes - sounds a great seller. That ATV bike (depending on points) is going to be awesome. In contrast, the new Necron units are a bit "meh" and for good reason. You don't want your new and fresh cash-cow marine players getting disillusioned by their primary opponent having something better than them.
You think they are good now? Wait until the multi-part kits come out. In my experience, the multi-part kits always come with an option that is better than what comes in the standard box - otherwise why would anyone pay a premium for the multi-part set? Never fear however, GW will have made all the newer updates more powerful up until 2 years time when they release a load of new Primaris models and buff the army again.
"Don't fight it. Buy Primaris today." - GW Slogan since 2018
The ATV is 85.
An old marine Attack Bike w/ MM is 55 points. 25 extra points over an ATV you can get two attack bikes.
Both of these will have the exact same wounds, toughness, attacks, etc.
The ATV has 6 S4 and 2 MM shots.
The Attack Bikes have 8 S4 and 4 MM shots.
So the Attack Bikes are basically an ATV that paid for a second MM. Can you tell me how that makes the ATV wildly better without some special rule?
Sumilidon wrote: In GW's defence - they don't care. They made some models, they want those models to sell. Double shooting meltas? Sure, why not? Space Marines stronger than Custodes - sounds a great seller. That ATV bike (depending on points) is going to be awesome. In contrast, the new Necron units are a bit "meh" and for good reason. You don't want your new and fresh cash-cow marine players getting disillusioned by their primary opponent having something better than them.
You think they are good now? Wait until the multi-part kits come out. In my experience, the multi-part kits always come with an option that is better than what comes in the standard box - otherwise why would anyone pay a premium for the multi-part set? Never fear however, GW will have made all the newer updates more powerful up until 2 years time when they release a load of new Primaris models and buff the army again.
"Don't fight it. Buy Primaris today." - GW Slogan since 2018
The ATV is 85.
An old marine Attack Bike w/ MM is 55 points. 25 extra points over an ATV you can get two attack bikes.
Both of these will have the exact same wounds, toughness, attacks, etc.
The ATV has 6 S4 and 2 MM shots.
The Attack Bikes have 8 S4 and 4 MM shots.
So the Attack Bikes are basically an ATV that paid for a second MM. Can you tell me how that makes the ATV wildly better without some special rule?
Slot efficiency/RO3? IDK, just guessing, i haven't been tracking it (and I am not familiar with how they can be taken in an army).
Unit1126PLL wrote: ...Slot efficiency/RO3? IDK, just guessing, i haven't been tracking it (and I am not familiar with how they can be taken in an army).
That's probably not going to be it, Attack Bikes are squads of 1-3. Bet you when GW notices this they'll hike the price on Attack Bikes.
There was talk about the ATV's getting a double shoot thing. That separates them from Bikes. Whether that died along with the rest of the rumors is anyone's guess, but for awhile, GW was aware of the issue, and had/s plans to address it, but it was so broken they couldn't.
Daedalus81 wrote: The ATV is 85.
An old marine Attack Bike w/ MM is 55 points. 25 extra points over an ATV you can get two attack bikes.
Both of these will have the exact same wounds, toughness, attacks, etc.
The ATV has 6 S4 and 2 MM shots.
The Attack Bikes have 8 S4 and 4 MM shots.
So the Attack Bikes are basically an ATV that paid for a second MM. Can you tell me how that makes the ATV wildly better without some special rule?
Really depends on whether 2 shot multimeltas for everyone is confirmed.
If it isn't, the issue is that you are getting approximately 2 attack bikes worth 110 points for 85.
Continue to doubt MMs will get this buff, because if all multimeltas are 2 shots AP-4, damage of D6+2 if in half range or whatever then they just laugh at lascannons and las-equivalent weapons in other factions. Which maybe could perhaps be fixed with points etc - but it seems like a massive gap.
Sumilidon wrote: In GW's defence - they don't care. They made some models, they want those models to sell. Double shooting meltas? Sure, why not? Space Marines stronger than Custodes - sounds a great seller. That ATV bike (depending on points) is going to be awesome. In contrast, the new Necron units are a bit "meh" and for good reason. You don't want your new and fresh cash-cow marine players getting disillusioned by their primary opponent having something better than them.
You think they are good now? Wait until the multi-part kits come out. In my experience, the multi-part kits always come with an option that is better than what comes in the standard box - otherwise why would anyone pay a premium for the multi-part set? Never fear however, GW will have made all the newer updates more powerful up until 2 years time when they release a load of new Primaris models and buff the army again.
"Don't fight it. Buy Primaris today." - GW Slogan since 2018
The ATV is 85.
An old marine Attack Bike w/ MM is 55 points. 25 extra points over an ATV you can get two attack bikes.
Both of these will have the exact same wounds, toughness, attacks, etc.
The ATV has 6 S4 and 2 MM shots.
The Attack Bikes have 8 S4 and 4 MM shots.
So the Attack Bikes are basically an ATV that paid for a second MM. Can you tell me how that makes the ATV wildly better without some special rule?
You compare against redundant marines where I am looking at those many armies which are not marines. The gun for example at half range is not 2d6 pick highest like a normal multi melta, it’s a 2 shot, 1d6 plus 2 meaning higher potential and better reliability. 14 inch movement is awesome, 8 wounds and so forth - that’s fantastic value for the points when you compare against other units at that points level, especially in a game looking very much to be based around speed. You also get the benefit of not being the old and ugly model (although the new one reminds me of the very old Ork buggy model from the mid-90s). A few of these can really punch holes in vehicles which are one of the real winners this edition, with the speed and decent durability to make the most of those melt as.
Continue to doubt MMs will get this buff, because if all multimeltas are 2 shots AP-4, damage of D6+2 if in half range or whatever then they just laugh at lascannons and las-equivalent weapons in other factions. Which maybe could perhaps be fixed with points etc - but it seems like a massive gap.
Points leaks gave the Multimelta a cost of 20 to the Lascannon 15. Two shots is the way to make that make sense.
Continue to doubt MMs will get this buff, because if all multimeltas are 2 shots AP-4, damage of D6+2 if in half range or whatever then they just laugh at lascannons and las-equivalent weapons in other factions. Which maybe could perhaps be fixed with points etc - but it seems like a massive gap.
Points leaks gave the Multimelta a cost of 20 to the Lascannon 15. Two shots is the way to make that make sense.
You'd think that but I'm like 90% sure at the beginning of 8th Multi-Meltas were actually more expensive than Lascannons.
Eipi10 wrote: I can't really speak for HH, but flare shields are a pretty common vehicle upgrades (it's not even standard equipment) and the tank isn't especially fast,
Flare shields are not common. In fact, a Land Raider cannot take them, which is the vehicle in question with which the Malcador is being compared. As for fast, the Malcador in the Solar Auxilia and Imperialis Militia army lists has the FAST special rule, and the legion one can fire its main gun after going Flat Out. That means it can go 18" a turn and fire, faster than any other tank in the game that isn't a skimmer.
Eipi10 wrote: it just can shoot its main gun at full BS when it moves flat-out (the HH equivalent of advance), in fact, the lore reason is the same as LR's grinding advance.
No it isn't. The Leman Russ can only fire at Combat Speed in HH (out side of a once-per-game ability available only to one type of tank in the Solar Auxilia, which lets them go 12" and shoot. Still slower than the Malcador), which is 6". There's definitely a speed difference (and lore difference) between 6 and 18 inches in a turn while still being able to engage targets with the main armament.
Eipi10 wrote: And while I am talking about lore I don't know where you are getting the bit about its drive system being temperamental or it being fast, the HH books state the exact opposite. EDIT: I checked Lexicanum and it is also right; I don't know what source you used, but FW certainly isn't to blame.
Sub-atomantic Reactor
The Malcador assault tanks found in the armouries of the Space Marine Legions are the oldest of their kind still in service, relics manufactured on Terra using facilities dating back to the Age of Strife. While hugely reliable, their power plants —hybrid reactor/combustor engine cores— lack the power of those found on the larger and more powerful war machines that largely replaced them in service. When rolling on the Tunderblitz and/or Catastrophic Damage tables for the Malcador, roll 2D6 and select the lower result.
You're confusing 30k with 40k Malcadors. In 30k, the Malcador is faster than any other tank (see above) while still being able to fire its gun. In 40k, it's drive system is temperamental because the AdMech have forgotten how to build it. Check out the rules in Imperial Armor Volume 1: Second Edition, for example.
Eipi10 wrote: In 40k, the Malcador is supposed to fall somewhere between a Russ and a Baneblade (obviously), but since it has the same amount of guns as Russ, and they don't want to do the extra work of making a special rule to buff its damage (like a different battle cannon variant), the only other option is to increase its wounds and they chose to do that in the simplest way possible, +50% wounds and +50% cost over the Russ.
Yes, this is I think how it was done.
I meant compared to the 40kLR grinding advance, and I am not familiar with the solar auxilia Malcador, I assumed it was the same as the legion one. And again, I am not familiar with the HH tactics, but it looks to me like the ability to shot on a flat-out move is more of a nice to have than a core feature of the tank. I mean, most of its firepower is in its hull guns, especially with a demolisher cannon.
I found a PDF of Imperial Armor Volume 1: Second Edition, it said nothing about the engine being temperamental, nor that it was any more forgotten compared to the rest of the tank. In fact, it's description was almost the same as the HH book of the same year, word for word.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: Ironically, two shot multi-meltas are also great for killing eradicators
40k is loyalist Horus Heresy
Sumilidon wrote: You think they are good now? Wait until the multi-part kits come out. In my experience, the multi-part kits always come with an option that is better than what comes in the standard box - otherwise why would anyone pay a premium for the multi-part set? Never fear however, GW will have made all the newer updates more powerful up until 2 years time when they release a load of new Primaris models and buff the army again.
"Don't fight it. Buy Primaris today." - GW Slogan since 2018
Although, Primaris weren't very good when they first came out. Most of 8th was based around putting as many bodies as possible out onto the board to take advantage of aura and stratagem scale. Paying 60% more than scouts for an extra wound, attack, save and AP point wasn't going to cut it, not when plasma spam was so common. In fact, Inceptors were the only good primaris unit precisely because they could fire more plasma than anything else per point. Maybe that was part of the plan, a soft sell for primaris, or maybe the made a "mistake" in not making them good and tried to overcompensate with super-primaris in the supplements. I mean the 2-year production cycle works out.
a_typical_hero wrote: Because you invest millions into salaries, production facilities, warehouses, logistics, your own brick&mortar stores to release a new product that is less attractive on purpose. That makes sense. You contradict yourself within two sentences. Do they want to sell the new Necrons or not? Do you think it increases sales numbers to make them weaker on purpose? Without proof at hand for it, I bet my sweet little bum that Marines sell regardless of rules. They are just that popular.
That is not true, look at how fast thunderfire cannons sold out when they entered the marine meta, or GK paladins, or any other top tier unit. Rules sell models, lore sells rules, and models sell lore, the GW Ouroboros. The last two parts are debatable, but a quick look at eBay will show you that models with good rules sell far beyond what they would otherwise sell at. And as far as Necrons go, the one of best ways to make a model good is to make its competition bad. For example, I bet the Silent King will be a top tier unit, especially compared to the rest of the Necron range, because he doesn't have a new SM counterpart to compete with.
except it is true, Marines have ALWAYS been the top selling GW models. with the tactical kit outselling the entire WFB LINE back in the day. do people buy whatever mini is most powerful in an attempt to chase the Meta? yes. this does not mean that Marines are dependant on a top meta placement to sell well. in fact given the marine sale rate, no matter how well they're doing, GW proably has more pressure to make non marine armies more powerful to produce demand for those ranges.
Sumilidon wrote: In GW's defence - they don't care. They made some models, they want those models to sell. Double shooting meltas? Sure, why not? Space Marines stronger than Custodes - sounds a great seller. That ATV bike (depending on points) is going to be awesome. In contrast, the new Necron units are a bit "meh" and for good reason. You don't want your new and fresh cash-cow marine players getting disillusioned by their primary opponent having something better than them.
You think they are good now? Wait until the multi-part kits come out. In my experience, the multi-part kits always come with an option that is better than what comes in the standard box - otherwise why would anyone pay a premium for the multi-part set? Never fear however, GW will have made all the newer updates more powerful up until 2 years time when they release a load of new Primaris models and buff the army again.
"Don't fight it. Buy Primaris today." - GW Slogan since 2018
The ATV is 85.
An old marine Attack Bike w/ MM is 55 points. 25 extra points over an ATV you can get two attack bikes.
Both of these will have the exact same wounds, toughness, attacks, etc.
The ATV has 6 S4 and 2 MM shots.
The Attack Bikes have 8 S4 and 4 MM shots.
So the Attack Bikes are basically an ATV that paid for a second MM. Can you tell me how that makes the ATV wildly better without some special rule?
You're right, the eyesore isn't any better than two attack bikes based purely on its stats, and it's entirely possible it won't get any special rules to push it over the top. Assault intercessors and Blade Guard didn't either (though they don't really need one, as their wargear is almost equal to two of the best Night Lords relics combined, on a model whose stats come close to a chaos lord, for less than half the cost). The only issue I see isn't with the unit itself, but with how it and the rest of the primaris line will function in the new scoring system for the new missions. Those two attack bikes count as two units towards either the Attrition or Thin Their Ranks secondaries, the Primariocart counts as one. Gw gave us secondaries that punish hordes, vehicles, characters, titanic units, and even psykers, but nothing that punishes armies comprised of elite, multi-wound infantry and bikes. That's why loyalists and Custodes look so good right now. We'll probably get a secondary that rewards killing elite units eventually, but until then any unit that can do the work of two similar ones for the same price that is either infantry or a bike will be very good.
Jidmah wrote:Ironically, two shot multi-meltas are also great for killing eradicators
A lot of the new primaris stuff looks like it was designed to fight other primaris. All these good units with multi-damage and D2 weapons. If gw doesn't start giving that kind of stuff out to other factions 40k could start looking like HH.
Eipi10 wrote: Or they can double down on making marines OP in order to sell just as much while needing to design fewer models.
if that was their plan why are necrons getting their entire range redone? people need to chill out, marines are getting a new codex in 2 monthsfor all we know marines could be unplayably bad by christmas. or necrons could get some insane boost to RP that makes them the best faction etc.
Daedalus81 wrote: The ATV is 85.
An old marine Attack Bike w/ MM is 55 points. 25 extra points over an ATV you can get two attack bikes.
Both of these will have the exact same wounds, toughness, attacks, etc.
The ATV has 6 S4 and 2 MM shots.
The Attack Bikes have 8 S4 and 4 MM shots.
So the Attack Bikes are basically an ATV that paid for a second MM. Can you tell me how that makes the ATV wildly better without some special rule?
Really depends on whether 2 shot multimeltas for everyone is confirmed.
If it isn't, the issue is that you are getting approximately 2 attack bikes worth 110 points for 85.
Continue to doubt MMs will get this buff, because if all multimeltas are 2 shots AP-4, damage of D6+2 if in half range or whatever then they just laugh at lascannons and las-equivalent weapons in other factions. Which maybe could perhaps be fixed with points etc - but it seems like a massive gap.
They cant not do it. It has the same name. Other factions however...
As for lascannons - it's all about the range. LC certainly become less interesting with these missions though.
I'd expect multi-meltas to be updated through a FAQ just like demolisher cannons were. It probably won't happen until the Eyesore is released however. And lascannons will be fine. They're all about pounding things at a distance. Melta needs to be up close and personal.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I'd expect multiple to be updated through a FAQ just like demolisher cannons were. It probably won't happen until the Eyesore is released however. And lascannons will be fine. They're all about pounding things at a distance. Melta needs to be up close and personal.
yup, which is how GW likely sees things, we're supposed to take las for ranged anti-tank and melta for close up anti-tank
They cant not do it. It has the same name. Other factions however...
As for lascannons - it's all about the range. LC certainly become less interesting with these missions though.
Storm Shield FAQ says hello. I think they could do it fairly easily. "The ATV is special and gets to shoot twice, this line is included in its datasheet because its special. Use the regular profile in all other datasheets for everyone else."
12" extra range is certainly worth *something* - but it is almost never making up for 2 shots. Especially in a game which is less about camping miles at the back.
If MM had a real short range - say 12" - such that you could potentially go turns without shooting - then okay.
But 24" when you can (largely) move and fire without penalty - whether its 5-6", never mind 14" - is fine.
Then its just numbers.
Vs Predator = same to hit, same to wound, no save versus 5/6 for a Las. So 2/(5/6)=over twice as good before we consider any upside in half range.
Vs Leman Russ = same to hit, Las=2/3 to wound, 5/6 to not be saved=10/18. MM=1/2 to wound, no save. So 1/(10/18) - just a bit less than twice as good, before we consider upside of being in half range.
Vs Knight (T8, 5++) - Las=2/3 to wound, 2/3rd to not be saved=4/9. MM=2*1/2*2/3=2/3. So 50% better before upside.
An average of 5.5 damage versus 3.5 damage is a further 57% damage upside if within 12" - which more than compensates you lacking a 36" range.
For the example, it means an MM in half range would do 3.76 times as much damage as a lascannon to a predator. It would do 2.35 times versus a Knight.
There are questions of how many points should go into a gun rather than in the context of a full unit. If you make a unit which does twice as much damage twice as expensive, you skew towards glass cannon, as you don't get any points for toughness/wounds. On the other hand, if you don't, the extra damage makes it a no-brainer.
In other words, MMs would be a steal if they were just 5 points more than a lascannon. They'd need to be something like at least 15 more - and really, even then, it would be a no-brainer on a platform like the ATV - because you'd be paying 18% more points (95 versus 80) for 50-100%+ more damage on the main gun.
Maybe you say the ATV should cost 33% more - so 80*1.33=106, lets call it 105. So your MM would have to be "Las+25" which is about 40/45 points. Which is still a bargain as per the numbers above. But it then raises the question of whether say Retributors, or MMDevs should cost 52-55 points a model. How glass should you go?
(I realise because people are pedantic the cry will go up that the ATV can't take a lascannon - but just consider any other platform. Compare the ATV with this gun to other comparable units which have a lascannon or lascannon equivalent gun for instance.)
Gadzilla666 wrote: I'd expect multiple to be updated through a FAQ just like demolisher cannons were. It probably won't happen until the Eyesore is released however. And lascannons will be fine. They're all about pounding things at a distance. Melta needs to be up close and personal.
yup, which is how GW likely sees things, we're supposed to take las for ranged anti-tank and melta for close up anti-tank
Well that is all well and good, but when they make the tables smaller , the extra range lascannons have isn't that much of an up side. It is even less an up side when all games are about swarming the objectives ASAP and being supported by very fast moving stuff.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I'd expect multiple to be updated through a FAQ just like demolisher cannons were. It probably won't happen until the Eyesore is released however. And lascannons will be fine. They're all about pounding things at a distance. Melta needs to be up close and personal.
yup, which is how GW likely sees things, we're supposed to take las for ranged anti-tank and melta for close up anti-tank
Well that is all well and good, but when they make the tables smaller , the extra range lascannons have isn't that much of an up side. It is even less an up side when all games are about swarming the objectives ASAP and being supported by very fast moving stuff.
this wou;dn't be the first time GW has over valued range to an unrealistic level IIRC
Gadzilla666 wrote: I'd expect multiple to be updated through a FAQ just like demolisher cannons were. It probably won't happen until the Eyesore is released however. And lascannons will be fine. They're all about pounding things at a distance. Melta needs to be up close and personal.
yup, which is how GW likely sees things, we're supposed to take las for ranged anti-tank and melta for close up anti-tank
Well that is all well and good, but when they make the tables smaller , the extra range lascannons have isn't that much of an up side. It is even less an up side when all games are about swarming the objectives ASAP and being supported by very fast moving stuff.
this wou;dn't be the first time GW has over valued range to an unrealistic level IIRC
Basilisk and the ICBM ?
GW really has an issue sometimes whith what is value and what isn't because seemingly gw doesn't really like beeing in touch with the ontable reality. (TBF though if you play 48" to 72" as a board for some trench warfare then yes range becomes invaluable.)
They cant not do it. It has the same name. Other factions however...
As for lascannons - it's all about the range. LC certainly become less interesting with these missions though.
Storm Shield FAQ says hello. I think they could do it fairly easily. "The ATV is special and gets to shoot twice, this line is included in its datasheet because its special. Use the regular profile in all other datasheets for everyone else."
12" extra range is certainly worth *something* - but it is almost never making up for 2 shots. Especially in a game which is less about camping miles at the back.
If MM had a real short range - say 12" - such that you could potentially go turns without shooting - then okay.
But 24" when you can (largely) move and fire without penalty - whether its 5-6", never mind 14" - is fine.
That FAQ changed what was in that book to fix a wording issues. Nothing else.
MM is great. If you're facing a contemptor with TLC then not even a full bike move gets you in range. That said we're on smaller tables, but that contemptor is no slouch with movement either and provided proper terrain will always get the first shot while the ATV as to expose itself. I fully expect way more MM though since it fits the aggressive mission style.
BrianDavion wrote: except it is true, Marines have ALWAYS been the top selling GW models. with the tactical kit outselling the entire WFB LINE back in the day. do people buy whatever mini is most powerful in an attempt to chase the Meta? yes. this does not mean that Marines are dependant on a top meta placement to sell well. in fact given the marine sale rate, no matter how well they're doing, GW proably has more pressure to make non marine armies more powerful to produce demand for those ranges.
Yet for how many editions has the starter box for the edition contained 1 unit of tactical marines. Answer as long as I can remember for 8 editions(if you count intercessors as the equivalent). GW also counted every Horus Heresy kit MK3 and Mk4 kits as marine sales too, despite them being for a different gaming system.
Also how often have you seen a GW store employee shove a Spacemarine box into kids hands and say these are spacemarines these are the super soliders you want to be.
(Might be a tad more synical as I had to go to a GW store recently to collect a model and got the 20 miniut hard sell Primaris are amazing yad yad, wound not stop even after being told I played 2 non marine armies, took listing my FW models to get them to shut up about bloody Primaris and give me what I was their for.
When your selling practices are that blatantly biasid it's no wonder everyone has some marines.
They cant not do it. It has the same name. Other factions however...
As for lascannons - it's all about the range. LC certainly become less interesting with these missions though.
Storm Shield FAQ says hello. I think they could do it fairly easily. "The ATV is special and gets to shoot twice, this line is included in its datasheet because its special. Use the regular profile in all other datasheets for everyone else."
12" extra range is certainly worth *something* - but it is almost never making up for 2 shots. Especially in a game which is less about camping miles at the back.
If MM had a real short range - say 12" - such that you could potentially go turns without shooting - then okay.
But 24" when you can (largely) move and fire without penalty - whether its 5-6", never mind 14" - is fine.
That FAQ changed what was in that book to fix a wording issues. Nothing else.
MM is great. If you're facing a contemptor with TLC then not even a full bike move gets you in range. That said we're on smaller tables, but that contemptor is no slouch with movement either and provided proper terrain will always get the first shot while the ATV as to expose itself. I fully expect way more MM though since it fits the aggressive mission style.
Why not just reserv the the 3 attack bikes? You don't need to blow it up turn one.Specialy if you are going second.
Although I don't claim to have much knowladge about the use of fast moving anti tank like attack bikes, so I could be very wrong.
Why not just reserv the the 3 attack bikes? You don't need to blow it up turn one.Specialy if you are going second.
Although I don't claim to have much knowladge about the use of fast moving anti tank like attack bikes, so I could be very wrong.
So far reserves has been difficult to use. The way the table goes only their deployment and mine has spots open. It makes deepstriking into their end easier, but reserves can't be there until turn 3.
BrianDavion wrote: if that was their plan why are necrons getting their entire range redone? people need to chill out, marines are getting a new codex in 2 monthsfor all we know marines could be unplayably bad by christmas. or necrons could get some insane boost to RP that makes them the best faction etc.
Half of the necron range will be the exact same after this "range redone" and you and I both know neither of those other two things will happen. Stop passing off impossibilities as likely outcomes. These are the kind of lies GW execs tell themselves when they lie awake at night, which they shamelessly reuse as fraudulent marketing tactics the next day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: When your selling practices are that blatantly biasid it's no wonder everyone has some marines.
You think GW would factor that into their market modeling equations. Oh well, I except squats to be released in Adeptus Titanicus before GW learns good business strategies.
Not Online!!! wrote: until 3d printing becomes even more accessible, then all they have left is rules.
And the actual IP. And economies of scale. And actual convenience.
The vast majority of people won't own a printer. So they'll have to hire one out. To do a properly detailed miniature its something like 8+ hours and 10x the cost. So, even if cost comes down the speed won't change much just by the nature of printing. So until someone rents out injection molders and someone else designs the sprue for free...it will be a really long time and some significant advancement to make it worthwhile.
And the guy making STL files here? They second he'd try to sell such a file he'd be sued so you'll rely entirely on the free labor of others.
Not Online!!! wrote: until 3d printing becomes even more accessible, then all they have left is rules.
And the actual IP. And economies of scale. And actual convenience.
The vast majority of people won't own a printer. So they'll have to hire one out. To do a properly detailed miniature its something like 8+ hours and 10x the cost. So, even if cost comes down the speed won't change much just by the nature of printing. So until someone rents out injection molders and someone else designs the sprue for free...it will be a really long time and some significant advancement to make it worthwhile.
And the guy making STL files here? They second he'd try to sell such a file he'd be sued so you'll rely entirely on the free labor of others.
That 'the vast majority of people won't own a printer' is the real big assumption, isn't it? You could make a pretty similar argument in the 90s for why music piracy would never be a problem- 'most people will never own a computer, so they'd have to pay people to burn them CDs, and anyone who advertises it for sale would be sued instantly'. And even with the reality that most people do own computers now, the vast majority of them have no idea how to pirate music, yet it still had a transformative effect on the music industry. Digital services selling individual music tracks for $0.99 apiece are a direct result of the impact piracy had on the industry- it heavily pushed the record labels towards lower prices and greater consumer-friendliness, to try to make the effort of piracy less attractive as an alternative.
If 3D printers become ubiquitous technology for wargamers, then GW may have to rethink their business model. The end result might not ever be that GW abandons plastic and everyone just licenses files and prints at home, but the market pressure imposed by an illegitimate alternative could push against the current luxury good pricing model, especially for lines like Forge World.
But in any case, the fact that GW is seeing record profits at the moment does not guarantee that the current strategy is optimal. Short-term profits at the cost of long-term gains, if pumping up Marines comes at the cost of retention of non-Marine players, is a legitimate concern.
3D printing would have to be in vogue for more than just wargaming to be cheap like ink printers are now. But given the required technical ability it will remain a niche industry. Sure, wargamers will tend to own them more frequently than the general population, but the effort it'd take to print a squad will still be much more than the instant gratification of driving to the store and having something ready to go.
If 3D printers became so good and easy to use I could see GW selling them and licensing out model files, but that's a really good long time from now.
I think people think Primaris are an extension of marines when they should really be thought of as their own army -- and that army is unfinished unlike most others. We're probably looking at Sons of Behemat for AoS after we clear the Indomitus bottleneck. Then it's probably almost time for the holidays.
....god what a year. It has gone by far too quickly.
I think people think Primaris are an extension of marines when they should really be thought of as their own army -- and that army is unfinished unlike most others. We're probably looking at Sons of Behemat for AoS after we clear the Indomitus bottleneck. Then it's probably almost time for the holidays.
....god what a year. It has gone by far too quickly.
Well they aren't they are just more units for the most bloated codex's in the game.
That aside Primaris still has more kits in their "incomplete range" than Drukari have lived with for howmany years.
Think they also have more units than Tau, GSC, Maybe Nids.
Don't think Ork's but it's close.
I think people think Primaris are an extension of marines when they should really be thought of as their own army -- and that army is unfinished unlike most others. We're probably looking at Sons of Behemat for AoS after we clear the Indomitus bottleneck. Then it's probably almost time for the holidays.
....god what a year. It has gone by far too quickly.
Well they aren't they are just more units for the most bloated codex's in the game.
That aside Primaris still has more kits in their "incomplete range" than Drukari have lived with for howmany years.
Think they also have more units than Tau, GSC, Maybe Nids.
Don't think Ork's but it's close.
If Primaris get to be their own army, why can't my Nurgle Daemons be their own army?
I think people think Primaris are an extension of marines when they should really be thought of as their own army -- and that army is unfinished unlike most others. We're probably looking at Sons of Behemat for AoS after we clear the Indomitus bottleneck. Then it's probably almost time for the holidays.
....god what a year. It has gone by far too quickly.
Well they aren't they are just more units for the most bloated codex's in the game.
That aside Primaris still has more kits in their "incomplete range" than Drukari have lived with for howmany years.
Think they also have more units than Tau, GSC, Maybe Nids.
Don't think Ork's but it's close.
If Primaris get to be their own army, why can't my Nurgle Daemons be their own army?
No idea dude Ptimaris defender's having to come up with new ways of moving the goalposts to justify the 3rd year of you Have more Broken Primaris BS.
I think people think Primaris are an extension of marines when they should really be thought of as their own army -- and that army is unfinished unlike most others. We're probably looking at Sons of Behemat for AoS after we clear the Indomitus bottleneck. Then it's probably almost time for the holidays.
....god what a year. It has gone by far too quickly.
Well they aren't they are just more units for the most bloated codex's in the game.
That aside Primaris still has more kits in their "incomplete range" than Drukari have lived with for howmany years.
Think they also have more units than Tau, GSC, Maybe Nids.
Don't think Ork's but it's close.
If Primaris get to be their own army, why can't my Nurgle Daemons be their own army?
No idea dude Ptimaris defender's having to come up with new ways of moving the goalposts to justify the 3rd year of you Have more Broken Primaris BS.
Since we're still in the first year of marines being too good, you might want to revise that.
No idea dude Ptimaris defender's having to come up with new ways of moving the goalposts to justify the 3rd year of you Have more Broken Primaris BS.
LOL, I'm not a defender I just hate bs. It was broken for 6 months and the COVID hit and no one got to process the changes before 9th came out. Now we're waiting for the actual codex to put everything for marines into context. This release schedule is not very different than the one they did with AoS and Stormcast.
Nurgle Daemons can be their own army when you can think of enough kits to make that viable and still keep it fluffy.
Since we're still in the first year of marines being too good, you might want to revise that.
You assumed I ment OP, they break every piece of marine fluff since 2nd edition.
Primaris is like taking a Beetles album, recording it with some Kpop Group and then saying your only allowed to listen to the Kpop version going forward.
Since we're still in the first year of marines being too good, you might want to revise that.
You assumed I ment OP, they break every piece of marine fluff since 2nd edition.
Primaris is like taking a Beetles album, recording it with some Kpop Group and then saying your only allowed to listen to the Kpop version going forward.
It's how you break the fans love for your IP.
Depends if you like Kpop, clearly primaris is reasonably well received overall and popular with hobbyists, even when they were utter turd game wise they were still widely liked.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3D printing would have to be in vogue for more than just wargaming to be cheap like ink printers are now. But given the required technical ability it will remain a niche industry. Sure, wargamers will tend to own them more frequently than the general population, but the effort it'd take to print a squad will still be much more than the instant gratification of driving to the store and having something ready to go.
If 3D printers became so good and easy to use I could see GW selling them and licensing out model files, but that's a really good long time from now.
I think people think Primaris are an extension of marines when they should really be thought of as their own army -- and that army is unfinished unlike most others. We're probably looking at Sons of Behemat for AoS after we clear the Indomitus bottleneck. Then it's probably almost time for the holidays.
....god what a year. It has gone by far too quickly.
How exactly are primaris incomplete as an army after these latest releases? What do they lack that other armies don't? Or are you just comparing them to the old loyalist line? Which, I might remind you, is already far more complete than most other armies.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3D printing would have to be in vogue for more than just wargaming to be cheap like ink printers are now. But given the required technical ability it will remain a niche industry. Sure, wargamers will tend to own them more frequently than the general population, but the effort it'd take to print a squad will still be much more than the instant gratification of driving to the store and having something ready to go.
If 3D printers became so good and easy to use I could see GW selling them and licensing out model files, but that's a really good long time from now.
I think people think Primaris are an extension of marines when they should really be thought of as their own army -- and that army is unfinished unlike most others. We're probably looking at Sons of Behemat for AoS after we clear the Indomitus bottleneck. Then it's probably almost time for the holidays.
....god what a year. It has gone by far too quickly.
How exactly are primaris incomplete as an army after these latest releases? What do they lack that other armies don't? Or are you just comparing them to the old loyalist line? Which, I might remind you, is already far more complete than most other armies.
They don't have a flyer or super heavy if you want to nitpick.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3D printing would have to be in vogue for more than just wargaming to be cheap like ink printers are now. But given the required technical ability it will remain a niche industry. Sure, wargamers will tend to own them more frequently than the general population, but the effort it'd take to print a squad will still be much more than the instant gratification of driving to the store and having something ready to go.
If 3D printers became so good and easy to use I could see GW selling them and licensing out model files, but that's a really good long time from now.
I think people think Primaris are an extension of marines when they should really be thought of as their own army -- and that army is unfinished unlike most others. We're probably looking at Sons of Behemat for AoS after we clear the Indomitus bottleneck. Then it's probably almost time for the holidays.
....god what a year. It has gone by far too quickly.
How exactly are primaris incomplete as an army after these latest releases? What do they lack that other armies don't? Or are you just comparing them to the old loyalist line? Which, I might remind you, is already far more complete than most other armies.
They don't have a flyer or super heavy if you want to nitpick.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3D printing would have to be in vogue for more than just wargaming to be cheap like ink printers are now. But given the required technical ability it will remain a niche industry. Sure, wargamers will tend to own them more frequently than the general population, but the effort it'd take to print a squad will still be much more than the instant gratification of driving to the store and having something ready to go.
If 3D printers became so good and easy to use I could see GW selling them and licensing out model files, but that's a really good long time from now.
I think people think Primaris are an extension of marines when they should really be thought of as their own army -- and that army is unfinished unlike most others. We're probably looking at Sons of Behemat for AoS after we clear the Indomitus bottleneck. Then it's probably almost time for the holidays.
....god what a year. It has gone by far too quickly.
How exactly are primaris incomplete as an army after these latest releases? What do they lack that other armies don't? Or are you just comparing them to the old loyalist line? Which, I might remind you, is already far more complete than most other armies.
They don't have a flyer or super heavy if you want to nitpick.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3D printing would have to be in vogue for more than just wargaming to be cheap like ink printers are now. But given the required technical ability it will remain a niche industry. Sure, wargamers will tend to own them more frequently than the general population, but the effort it'd take to print a squad will still be much more than the instant gratification of driving to the store and having something ready to go.
If 3D printers became so good and easy to use I could see GW selling them and licensing out model files, but that's a really good long time from now.
I think people think Primaris are an extension of marines when they should really be thought of as their own army -- and that army is unfinished unlike most others. We're probably looking at Sons of Behemat for AoS after we clear the Indomitus bottleneck. Then it's probably almost time for the holidays.
....god what a year. It has gone by far too quickly.
How exactly are primaris incomplete as an army after these latest releases? What do they lack that other armies don't? Or are you just comparing them to the old loyalist line? Which, I might remind you, is already far more complete than most other armies.
They don't have a flyer or super heavy if you want to nitpick.
How exactly are primaris incomplete as an army after these latest releases? What do they lack that other armies don't? Or are you just comparing them to the old loyalist line? Which, I might remind you, is already far more complete than most other armies.
I think they're mostly complete now. There's enough to give them splash releases or another box in the future. That and the large amount of models not in multipart kits. I'm sure GW can surprise us though.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3D printing would have to be in vogue for more than just wargaming to be cheap like ink printers are now. But given the required technical ability it will remain a niche industry. Sure, wargamers will tend to own them more frequently than the general population, but the effort it'd take to print a squad will still be much more than the instant gratification of driving to the store and having something ready to go.
If 3D printers became so good and easy to use I could see GW selling them and licensing out model files, but that's a really good long time from now.
I think people think Primaris are an extension of marines when they should really be thought of as their own army -- and that army is unfinished unlike most others. We're probably looking at Sons of Behemat for AoS after we clear the Indomitus bottleneck. Then it's probably almost time for the holidays.
....god what a year. It has gone by far too quickly.
How exactly are primaris incomplete as an army after these latest releases? What do they lack that other armies don't? Or are you just comparing them to the old loyalist line? Which, I might remind you, is already far more complete than most other armies.
They don't have a flyer or super heavy if you want to nitpick.
How exactly are primaris incomplete as an army after these latest releases? What do they lack that other armies don't? Or are you just comparing them to the old loyalist line? Which, I might remind you, is already far more complete than most other armies.
I think they're mostly complete now. There's enough to give them splash releases or another box in the future. That and the large amount of models not in multipart kits. I'm sure GW can surprise us though.
Thanks for the honest answer. Here's hoping that gw shares that opinion and starts paying attention to someone else. Hopefully the update for Necrons is a sign of things to come.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3D printing would have to be in vogue for more than just wargaming to be cheap like ink printers are now. But given the required technical ability it will remain a niche industry. Sure, wargamers will tend to own them more frequently than the general population, but the effort it'd take to print a squad will still be much more than the instant gratification of driving to the store and having something ready to go.
If 3D printers became so good and easy to use I could see GW selling them and licensing out model files, but that's a really good long time from now.
I think people think Primaris are an extension of marines when they should really be thought of as their own army -- and that army is unfinished unlike most others. We're probably looking at Sons of Behemat for AoS after we clear the Indomitus bottleneck. Then it's probably almost time for the holidays.
....god what a year. It has gone by far too quickly.
How exactly are primaris incomplete as an army after these latest releases? What do they lack that other armies don't? Or are you just comparing them to the old loyalist line? Which, I might remind you, is already far more complete than most other armies.
They don't have a flyer or super heavy if you want to nitpick.
They are supposed to be the best swordsmen in the company of marines. They are part of the command squad that every captain has along side the company ancient. Game wise they are minor characters that specialize in dueling other characters. There is an old marine version but no primaris version.
They aren't hugely important models but they are listed as being present in every codex compliant chapter. So one would assume primaris only chapters in the fluff have them.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3D printing would have to be in vogue for more than just wargaming to be cheap like ink printers are now. But given the required technical ability it will remain a niche industry. Sure, wargamers will tend to own them more frequently than the general population, but the effort it'd take to print a squad will still be much more than the instant gratification of driving to the store and having something ready to go.
If 3D printers became so good and easy to use I could see GW selling them and licensing out model files, but that's a really good long time from now.
I think people think Primaris are an extension of marines when they should really be thought of as their own army -- and that army is unfinished unlike most others. We're probably looking at Sons of Behemat for AoS after we clear the Indomitus bottleneck. Then it's probably almost time for the holidays.
....god what a year. It has gone by far too quickly.
How exactly are primaris incomplete as an army after these latest releases? What do they lack that other armies don't? Or are you just comparing them to the old loyalist line? Which, I might remind you, is already far more complete than most other armies.
They don't have a flyer or super heavy if you want to nitpick.
How exactly are primaris incomplete as an army after these latest releases? What do they lack that other armies don't? Or are you just comparing them to the old loyalist line? Which, I might remind you, is already far more complete than most other armies.
I think they're mostly complete now. There's enough to give them splash releases or another box in the future. That and the large amount of models not in multipart kits. I'm sure GW can surprise us though.
Thanks for the honest answer. Here's hoping that gw shares that opinion and starts paying attention to someone else. Hopefully the update for Necrons is a sign of things to come.
Because if it's not plastic you can't get it in their stores mostly, so I always precieved that GW don't consider FW when looking at an arms range. There's also still a large number of "omg FW ban it!!!!!" people out there.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Thanks for the honest answer. Here's hoping that gw shares that opinion and starts paying attention to someone else. Hopefully the update for Necrons is a sign of things to come.
I would say GW is paying attention to other factions.
Model/Unit releases that I cared to look up for 8th edition which are NOT Space Marines:
Orks: 12
Custodes: 5
Mechanicus: 12
Eldar: 4
GSC: 17
Tau: 1
Sororitas: 27
Chaos combined: 77 - (Maybe GW should tone down the Chaos related releases to make room for less supported factions )
Some are the same unit with different weapons, some are single troop leaders, some are from these "Heroes booster packs" or whatever.
Necrons overhaul is right around the corner with a bucketload of new miniatures.
New "lieutenant" style heroes for several factions have been teased officially.
I think people are more biased than they should be - given the numbers - against Marines because they seem to get something every other month
Daedalus81 wrote: 3D printing would have to be in vogue for more than just wargaming to be cheap like ink printers are now. But given the required technical ability it will remain a niche industry. Sure, wargamers will tend to own them more frequently than the general population, but the effort it'd take to print a squad will still be much more than the instant gratification of driving to the store and having something ready to go.
If 3D printers became so good and easy to use I could see GW selling them and licensing out model files, but that's a really good long time from now.
I think people think Primaris are an extension of marines when they should really be thought of as their own army -- and that army is unfinished unlike most others. We're probably looking at Sons of Behemat for AoS after we clear the Indomitus bottleneck. Then it's probably almost time for the holidays.
....god what a year. It has gone by far too quickly.
How exactly are primaris incomplete as an army after these latest releases? What do they lack that other armies don't? Or are you just comparing them to the old loyalist line? Which, I might remind you, is already far more complete than most other armies.
They don't have a flyer or super heavy if you want to nitpick.
Good point I tend to forget that's meant to be primaris, but they're still lacking a core GW plastic superheavy alongside a few other factions.
What difference does it make whether or not it's plastic? Especially considering several factions lack super heavys period?
Because if it's not plastic you can't get it in their stores mostly, so I always precieved that GW don't consider FW when looking at an arms range. There's also still a large number of "omg FW ban it!!!!!" people out there.
Good points. Gw should consider fw if they are going to sell the models and give them rules, and those "OMG, FW, ban it!!!" folks are misinformed. I'd like to see them point out a single Forge World super heavy that outperforms its plastic counterparts on a points vs points basis. CA has been extremely unkind to resin super heavys, though the Astreus has been handed with kids gloves compared to the rest, probably due to it's "primaris" status. And even then I would argue it's still somewhat overpriced, just not as much as the rest.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Thanks for the honest answer. Here's hoping that gw shares that opinion and starts paying attention to someone else. Hopefully the update for Necrons is a sign of things to come.
I would say GW is paying attention to other factions.
Model/Unit releases that I cared to look up for 8th edition which are NOT Space Marines:
Orks: 12
Custodes: 5
Mechanicus: 12
Eldar: 4
GSC: 17
Tau: 1
Sororitas: 27
Chaos combined: 77 - (Maybe GW should tone down the Chaos related releases to make room for less supported factions )
Some are the same unit with different weapons, some are single troop leaders, some are from these "Heroes booster packs" or whatever.
Necrons overhaul is right around the corner with a bucketload of new miniatures.
New "lieutenant" style heroes for several factions have been teased officially.
I think people are more biased than they should be - given the numbers - against Marines because they seem to get something every other month
Cute. But if you're going to combine chaos into one grouping shouldn't you do the same for Imperials? So 119. If you expect me to consider a Nurgle daemon to be a release that pertains to my Night Lords then it seems only fair to do the same by considering a new Tech Priest as a release that pertains to Space Wolves.
And I don't know how you think those pitiful numbers for Xenos factions helps your argument.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Thanks for the honest answer. Here's hoping that gw shares that opinion and starts paying attention to someone else. Hopefully the update for Necrons is a sign of things to come.
I would say GW is paying attention to other factions.
Model/Unit releases that I cared to look up for 8th edition which are NOT Space Marines:
Orks: 12
Custodes: 5
Mechanicus: 12
Eldar: 4
GSC: 17
Tau: 1
Sororitas: 27
Chaos combined: 77 - (Maybe GW should tone down the Chaos related releases to make room for less supported factions )
Some are the same unit with different weapons, some are single troop leaders, some are from these "Heroes booster packs" or whatever.
Necrons overhaul is right around the corner with a bucketload of new miniatures.
New "lieutenant" style heroes for several factions have been teased officially.
I think people are more biased than they should be - given the numbers - against Marines because they seem to get something every other month
I just had to check this, whilst also going back a bit in time:
Miniatures released so far during 6th, 7th, 8th Ed (so since June 2012)
Space Marines: 170 +16 so far in 9th
Chaos Space Marines: 67
Chaos Demons: 42
Genestealer Cult:34
Orks:30
Necron:7 + 15 so far in 9th
Adeptus Mechanicus:21
Eldar:20
Tau:20
Tyranids:18
Astra Militarum:18
Chaos Knights/Imperial Knights:10
Adeptus Custodes:8
Harlequins:8
Drukhari:7
Grey Knights:1
Adepta Sororitas:?
I rest my case I mean Grey Knights getting one new model in 8 years and Space Marines getting 186...
Gadzilla666 wrote: Cute. But if you're going to combine chaos into one grouping shouldn't you do the same for Imperials? So 119. If you expect me to consider a Nurgle daemon to be a release that pertains to my Night Lords then it seems only fair to do the same by considering a new Tech Priest as a release that pertains to Space Wolves.
And I don't know how you think those pitiful numbers for Xenos factions helps your argument.
The Necrons have less than 20 new releases that we've seen so far. And this is supposed to be a range refresh. Primaris are almost a third of the 230 releases in 8th. There is a reason why GW has made them their own grand alliance equivalent on their web store. And going back to 6th, it's 186/540, that's over a third.
Daedalus81 wrote: 3D printing would have to be in vogue for more than just wargaming to be cheap like ink printers are now. But given the required technical ability it will remain a niche industry. Sure, wargamers will tend to own them more frequently than the general population, but the effort it'd take to print a squad will still be much more than the instant gratification of driving to the store and having something ready to go.
If 3D printers became so good and easy to use I could see GW selling them and licensing out model files, but that's a really good long time from now.
I've 3d printed a few OOPFW bits, a vehicle, and some non-GW acolytes with a $300 printer and the cheapest PLA filament I could find, not much more than a good ink printer. Humanoid models come out terrible. It is impossible to get the supports right, especially on the face. You would need to use some kind of automated, liquid/vibration-based support remover, but at that point you are looking at thousand dollar setups. Vehicles, on the other hand, come out great. Rivets are the most complex detail they usually have; granted I was using copies of mid-2000s sculpts. Shoulder pads also come out well, and weapons are a bit mixed, the larger the better. I just used a file and knife to clean up the bits and they aren't off-putting when painted, but you can definitely tell they are 3d printed. All in all, I would say it was no harder than building my first mini several years ago and certainly took less in-person time too.
As for the business model, if GW starts selling model files, that will take a huge chunk out of their business. There is no way they can charge the kind of premiums they do for STL files. To be honest, I am not very confident in the company's future.
Good point I tend to forget that's meant to be primaris, but they're still lacking a core GW plastic superheavy alongside a few other factions.
Space Marines themselves don't even have a plastic Superheavy.
By design. It's one of the areas where I hope the background sticks, and keeps GW from indulging in another poorly thought out release.
Oh I agree. Just goes to show a miniature line can be more than complete without one.
(Imo the Leviathan is too "heavy" for Space Marines).
For loyalists maybe, but not for actual Legionnaires.
I'd actually agree with that too. Chaos marines should be far more open ended with their war equipment, as they can't rely on other branches to pick up any slack, and are also unbound by any rules. If I ever bought a Leviathan model, it'd go to my Chaos collection.
Good point I tend to forget that's meant to be primaris, but they're still lacking a core GW plastic superheavy alongside a few other factions.
Space Marines themselves don't even have a plastic Superheavy.
By design. It's one of the areas where I hope the background sticks, and keeps GW from indulging in another poorly thought out release.
Oh I agree. Just goes to show a miniature line can be more than complete without one.
(Imo the Leviathan is too "heavy" for Space Marines).
For loyalists maybe, but not for actual Legionnaires.
I'd actually agree with that too. Chaos marines should be far more open ended with their war equipment, as they can't rely on other branches to pick up any slack, and are also unbound by any rules. If I ever bought a Leviathan model, it'd go to my Chaos collection.
They kinda are. The relic rule for the FW vehicles only extends to Loyalists whereas Chaos just has free reign to take whatever.
Good point I tend to forget that's meant to be primaris, but they're still lacking a core GW plastic superheavy alongside a few other factions.
Space Marines themselves don't even have a plastic Superheavy.
By design. It's one of the areas where I hope the background sticks, and keeps GW from indulging in another poorly thought out release.
Oh I agree. Just goes to show a miniature line can be more than complete without one.
(Imo the Leviathan is too "heavy" for Space Marines).
For loyalists maybe, but not for actual Legionnaires.
I'd actually agree with that too. Chaos marines should be far more open ended with their war equipment, as they can't rely on other branches to pick up any slack, and are also unbound by any rules. If I ever bought a Leviathan model, it'd go to my Chaos collection.
They kinda are. The relic rule for the FW vehicles only extends to Loyalists whereas Chaos just has free reign to take whatever.
Unfortunately gw likes to fix that by nerfing our Legion vehicles into unusablity.
Eipi10 wrote: To be honest, I am not very confident in the company's future.
If printing can kill GW then the hobby itself is dead (because it will certainly kill smaller companies). You might get small parts of the community that manage to not squabble to make their own rules based on inconsistent models, but you'd never regain the global appeal of Warhammer.
All that said people still pay $15 for a hamburger from top tier fast food joints.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Cute. But if you're going to combine chaos into one grouping shouldn't you do the same for Imperials? So 119. If you expect me to consider a Nurgle daemon to be a release that pertains to my Night Lords then it seems only fair to do the same by considering a new Tech Priest as a release that pertains to Space Wolves.
And I don't know how you think those pitiful numbers for Xenos factions helps your argument.
Sounds like your real argument is that GW did not release enough models for your chosen subfaction's playstyle. Which is different from what you were writing before. And yes, please go ahead and put all Imperials into one list. I'm totally fine with that. 119 to 77 is still a good ratio even not considering that one side includes the most pushed and most sold faction in the game.
If 77 - for the most part interusable and/or easily soupable - models for one combined faction still means "no focus on anything apart from Marines", then we simply have a different point of view.
If Eldar (or any Xenos race) had 77 releases distributed between Harlequins, Dark Eldar, Craftworlds and Corsairs they would have had the time of their lives.
My argument was not that all factions get equal attention. Mine was that GW does not focus attention on Marines only. The models on the site I cited don't have a release date with them, else I would have added that non-Marines get their releases usually not as often, but then in a bulk while Marines get single releases all the time. But I don't have numbers for that an thus it is only my personal feeling.
Chaos is now one faction supposedly and has 77 Releases whilest sm alone have 75 and Chaos should stop?
Not to mention Tau,orks etc?!?
Just to be clear, my bracketed sentence about Chaos was meant as a joke, hence the emoticons.
If you want to hear my opinion about it: Everybody should get more releases. I'm not arguing for Chaos or Marines to get less. I was only showing numbers to counter the implied statement that only Marines get attention.
Chaos isn't one faction, but in the context of 8th edition rules in which these models were released, you can easily soup them together or use them in your army as "count as". Thousand Sons HQ for your psyker, Poxwalker for your Cultists and so on. You can even soup them now, admittedly at a higher cost than before.
I don't want to go down that discussion path, as one could argue old marines did not get anything for the whole edition outside of one made to order scriptor, a GW store opening captain and some random tac marines in single random chance booster packs.
The number of releases we are getting is just perfect, and we don't have any real holes in our codex that need to be stuffed, unlike many of the newer factions do.
If they keep releasing stuff at the same pace they did in 8th and update some of our ancient models while doing so, I'll be a happy warboss for years to come.
The number of releases we are getting is just perfect, and we don't have any real holes in our codex that need to be stuffed, unlike many of the newer factions do.
If they keep releasing stuff at the same pace they did in 8th and update some of our ancient models while doing so, I'll be a happy warboss for years to come.
Yeah a new combined boyz+kommandos kit to spice up the many copies of the old boyz kit I own and id be basically set for orks for the year.
I have many more armies I feel are in more dire need for new stuff.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Cute. But if you're going to combine chaos into one grouping shouldn't you do the same for Imperials? So 119. If you expect me to consider a Nurgle daemon to be a release that pertains to my Night Lords then it seems only fair to do the same by considering a new Tech Priest as a release that pertains to Space Wolves.
And I don't know how you think those pitiful numbers for Xenos factions helps your argument.
Sounds like your real argument is that GW did not release enough models for your chosen subfaction's playstyle. Which is different from what you were writing before. And yes, please go ahead and put all Imperials into one list. I'm totally fine with that. 119 to 77 is still a good ratio even not considering that one side includes the most pushed and most sold faction in the game.
If 77 - for the most part interusable and/or easily soupable - models for one combined faction still means "no focus on anything apart from Marines", then we simply have a different point of view.
If Eldar (or any Xenos race) had 77 releases distributed between Harlequins, Dark Eldar, Craftworlds and Corsairs they would have had the time of their lives.
My argument was not that all factions get equal attention. Mine was that GW does not focus attention on Marines only. The models on the site I cited don't have a release date with them, else I would have added that non-Marines get their releases usually not as often, but then in a bulk while Marines get single releases all the time. But I don't have numbers for that an thus it is only my personal feeling.
Chaos is now one faction supposedly and has 77 Releases whilest sm alone have 75 and Chaos should stop?
Not to mention Tau,orks etc?!?
Just to be clear, my bracketed sentence about Chaos was meant as a joke, hence the emoticons.
If you want to hear my opinion about it: Everybody should get more releases. I'm not arguing for Chaos or Marines to get less. I was only showing numbers to counter the implied statement that only Marines get attention.
Chaos isn't one faction, but in the context of 8th edition rules in which these models were released, you can easily soup them together or use them in your army as "count as". Thousand Sons HQ for your psyker, Poxwalker for your Cultists and so on. You can even soup them now, admittedly at a higher cost than before.
I don't want to go down that discussion path, as one could argue old marines did not get anything for the whole edition outside of one made to order scriptor, a GW store opening captain and some random tac marines in single random chance booster packs.
Would still be more than Tau, though
Also if one looks at the chaos releases on the whole across 8th edition it's a pretty damn solid release pattern.
8th edition saw the compleition of basicly a total refresh of the chaos deamons line (something that had begun in 7th edition with Khrone) a refresh of the core CSM units, the launch of two new armies (technicly 3 but the models side of things for 1k sons was 100% done by late 7E) over all 8th edition was the release of a entire new range fo space marines, and a "near complete chaos reboot"
Daedalus81 wrote: 3D printing would have to be in vogue for more than just wargaming to be cheap like ink printers are now. But given the required technical ability it will remain a niche industry. Sure, wargamers will tend to own them more frequently than the general population, but the effort it'd take to print a squad will still be much more than the instant gratification of driving to the store and having something ready to go.
If 3D printers became so good and easy to use I could see GW selling them and licensing out model files, but that's a really good long time from now.
There is absolutely no way that doesn't happen with 3D printing technology, compare what you could buy for home use a decade ago to what you can buy now and the track it's on is obvious. There's just way too much potential there.
[Edit] Sorry, got entirely off-topic there. I own both Marines and Custodes, and honestly the base plastic Custodes line didn't really work even before Marines started getting a significant roster of Gravis units that could more directly compete with them.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Cute. But if you're going to combine chaos into one grouping shouldn't you do the same for Imperials? So 119. If you expect me to consider a Nurgle daemon to be a release that pertains to my Night Lords then it seems only fair to do the same by considering a new Tech Priest as a release that pertains to Space Wolves.
And I don't know how you think those pitiful numbers for Xenos factions helps your argument.
Sounds like your real argument is that GW did not release enough models for your chosen subfaction's playstyle. Which is different from what you were writing before. And yes, please go ahead and put all Imperials into one list. I'm totally fine with that. 119 to 77 is still a good ratio even not considering that one side includes the most pushed and most sold faction in the game.
If 77 - for the most part interusable and/or easily soupable - models for one combined faction still means "no focus on anything apart from Marines", then we simply have a different point of view.
If Eldar (or any Xenos race) had 77 releases distributed between Harlequins, Dark Eldar, Craftworlds and Corsairs they would have had the time of their lives.
My argument was not that all factions get equal attention. Mine was that GW does not focus attention on Marines only. The models on the site I cited don't have a release date with them, else I would have added that non-Marines get their releases usually not as often, but then in a bulk while Marines get single releases all the time. But I don't have numbers for that an thus it is only my personal feeling.
Chaos is now one faction supposedly and has 77 Releases whilest sm alone have 75 and Chaos should stop?
Not to mention Tau,orks etc?!?
Just to be clear, my bracketed sentence about Chaos was meant as a joke, hence the emoticons.
If you want to hear my opinion about it: Everybody should get more releases. I'm not arguing for Chaos or Marines to get less. I was only showing numbers to counter the implied statement that only Marines get attention.
Chaos isn't one faction, but in the context of 8th edition rules in which these models were released, you can easily soup them together or use them in your army as "count as". Thousand Sons HQ for your psyker, Poxwalker for your Cultists and so on. You can even soup them now, admittedly at a higher cost than before.
I don't want to go down that discussion path, as one could argue old marines did not get anything for the whole edition outside of one made to order scriptor, a GW store opening captain and some random tac marines in single random chance booster packs.
Would still be more than Tau, though
Nope, I was just pointing out the disingenuous way you're method of counting skewed the numbers. As I've said before in other threads: I don't want new models, I want new rules for the models I already have. Unfortunately gw seems either unwilling or unable to change older units stat lines and abilities except in a few fringe cases. That's one of the things that leads to the problem being discussed here, as loyalists have been getting a massive amount of new units, all with stat lines and abilities to work in the new rules and metas created by those rules, while older units are left to languish with stats that are less relevant in a game dominated by the PEQ stat line. Even when gw releases a new model for an older unit it almost always continues to use the same data sheet.
Loyalists can have all the ugly new models they want, I just want rules to make my old ones work against them. Enjoy your Repulives, Astreus, and Intercessors. I just want good rules for my Land Raiders, Fellblade, and Chosen.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Thanks for the honest answer. Here's hoping that gw shares that opinion and starts paying attention to someone else. Hopefully the update for Necrons is a sign of things to come.
I would say GW is paying attention to other factions.
Model/Unit releases that I cared to look up for 8th edition which are NOT Space Marines:
Orks: 12
Custodes: 5
Mechanicus: 12
Eldar: 4
GSC: 17
Tau: 1
Sororitas: 27
Chaos combined: 77 - (Maybe GW should tone down the Chaos related releases to make room for less supported factions )
Some are the same unit with different weapons, some are single troop leaders, some are from these "Heroes booster packs" or whatever.
Necrons overhaul is right around the corner with a bucketload of new miniatures.
New "lieutenant" style heroes for several factions have been teased officially.
I think people are more biased than they should be - given the numbers - against Marines because they seem to get something every other month
I just had to check this, whilst also going back a bit in time:
Miniatures released so far during 6th, 7th, 8th Ed (so since June 2012)
Space Marines: 170 +16 so far in 9th
Chaos Space Marines: 67
Chaos Demons: 42
Genestealer Cult:34
Orks:30
Necron:7 + 15 so far in 9th
Adeptus Mechanicus:21
Eldar:20
Tau:20
Tyranids:18
Astra Militarum:18
Chaos Knights/Imperial Knights:10
Adeptus Custodes:8
Harlequins:8
Drukhari:7
Grey Knights:1
Adepta Sororitas:?
I rest my case I mean Grey Knights getting one new model in 8 years and Space Marines getting 186...
Eipi10 wrote: To be honest, I am not very confident in the company's future.
If printing can kill GW then the hobby itself is dead (because it will certainly kill smaller companies). You might get small parts of the community that manage to not squabble to make their own rules based on inconsistent models, but you'd never regain the global appeal of Warhammer.
All that said people still pay $15 for a hamburger from top tier fast food joints.
A hamburger is not a near-zero marginal cost good, an STL file is. It takes some very fancy business strategies to make zero marginal cost goods appeal to consumers at a profit-maximizing price. Not that it can't be done, but I am not confident in GW's ability to do it. Especially, when almost all successful ZMC goods very dependant on the first-mover advantage, while miniatures are much less so.
More importantly, GW =/= the hobby. A lot of old GW specialist games are shockingly well supported by the community considering their age and lack of initial support to begin with. And even then, GW isn't the reason most people enter the hobby. I don't know of anyone who plays warhammer because they stumbled into a GW one day, but I do know people who stopped/reduced their playing after a price rise, especially heresy players after FW went to "international pricing". That, and not the death of Alan Blight and the poor rules released after his death, killed the heresy in my area. Back on topic, I am not saying GW will go away, but I am staying GW might be reduced to BL and their specialist games section in the future since those are much more FMA dependent product lines.
The Newman wrote: There is absolutely no way that doesn't happen with 3D printing technology, compare what you could buy for home use a decade ago to what you can buy now and the track it's on is obvious. There's just way too much potential there.
[Edit] Sorry, got entirely off-topic there. I own both Marines and Custodes, and honestly the base plastic Custodes line didn't really work even before Marines started getting a significant roster of Gravis units that could more directly compete with them.
I have a non-FW custodes-only army at 1000 points, and not bike spam to boot. It would say they worked about as well as necrons did in 8th; a really swingy, surprisingly durable, uncomfortably slow, bad at board control, and over-costed by about 10%. Larger, full-size games tend to amplify their problems and diminish their positives. 9th core rules fixed a lot of the custodes fundamental issues, and their very light point changes have helped them even more. They would have been a mid-tier army at worst, but marines can do everything they can do, just for so much less.
Daedalus81 wrote: ...If printing can kill GW then the hobby itself is dead (because it will certainly kill smaller companies)...
I don't know if the 3d printing apocalypse is really going to overrun GW. They've been pushing their minis design towards the fiddly and hard to 3d print for a while now; a desktop FDM printer can do a great Rhino, sure, but the kind of tiny fiddly bits involved in stuff like Szeras isn't really doable. STL printing might threaten them at some point but I don't know if STL printers are ever going to be the kind of cheap desktop toys FDM printers are given the problem of fumes, and commercial STL printing is still more expensive than just buying stuff from GW.
you Have more Broken Primaris 
