30305
Post by: Laughing Man
the_scotsman wrote: Laughing Man wrote:
How are you getting 14,out of curiosity? The best I can figure for an assault intercessors is 6, 12 when fighting twice.
Also Kharn has 14. :p
Sarge (3) Chainsword (1) echoes (1) Shock assault (1) Black Rage (1) and fight twice.
Death Company don't have sergeants.
121131
Post by: Catulle
Wakshaani wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
Did you miss the caveats on it?
-Only usable during Assault Doctrine
-Only triggers on unmodified 6s to Wound
It's strong, but it doesn't seem OMGBROKEN!!11!
Also only once per game, so better time it just right.
But, Wak, it *doesn't say* "...per game" therefore Rules-As-Written, it *must* be interpreted as once... ever. In your entire 40k career.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
Catulle wrote:Wakshaani wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
Did you miss the caveats on it?
-Only usable during Assault Doctrine
-Only triggers on unmodified 6s to Wound
It's strong, but it doesn't seem OMGBROKEN!!11!
Also only once per game, so better time it just right.
But, Wak, it *doesn't say* "...per game" therefore Rules-As-Written, it *must* be interpreted as once... ever. In your entire 40k career.
Cue the inevitable YMDC thread with some people arguing just that...
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
WS3+ would just be amazing on its own.
Imagine a world where Daemon Engines are better at hitting things in HTH combat than Guardsmen.
107700
Post by: alextroy
Dudeface wrote: puma713 wrote:Notice that the MBH has 9 wounds, which means it could have a bracket and is no longer taken in groups of 3. Possibly.
Brackets start at 10 without exception so far I think?
And always appear on the datasheet. I give it a 99.99% chance there are no brackets for the MBH.
Still, nice bit of upgrades, including the upgraded Multi-Melta for those expecting the worst.
92012
Post by: Argive
I don't think ive seen anything with brackets with 9 or below so far. Seems pretty solid indicator.
54233
Post by: AduroT
I’m hearing allocations on the Gladiator again. Only getting two per store. One set of dice. Eight books.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
I like the stat improvement on the MBH, so far I am pleased. I will be less so if they can't squad up still as I have enough for a couple squads just to get the bonus to hit. I don't care if they don't get a bonus though, means they can be in teams of two but they were my game plan to move up with my marines to give the stink cloud support and covering fire.
GW, just this once, treat me right and don't give me the smack down for actually buying things. Automatically Appended Next Post:  H.B.M.C. wrote:WS3+ would just be amazing on its own.
Imagine a world where Daemon Engines are better at hitting things in HTH combat than Guardsmen.
I don't need to imagine, the future may be now.
113031
Post by: Voss
 AduroT wrote:I’m hearing allocations on the Gladiator again. Only getting two per store. One set of dice. Eight books.
Overpriced, overpointed and limited stock.
Knocking this one out of the park!
121864
Post by: Castozor
MBH going to 3+ and up to 9 wounds would be nice. Makes it less punishing to lose one in a squad and makes it easier to spread around units of 1 for the cover bonus. I'm pleased with this although I fear they might be getting a hefty price hike.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
In all honesty everyone can have all of my potential gladiators. I had pondered one but at the cost they are going to be ? Heck no. The prices are getting just a bit too crazy for me these days. They had been before but they just keep rising, makes me wonder when you'll be paying 100 USD for a rhino and people will say " It's pure value ". Automatically Appended Next Post:  Castozor wrote:MBH going to 3+ and up to 9 wounds would be nice. Makes it less punishing to lose one in a squad and makes it easier to spread around units of 1 for the cover bonus. I'm pleased with this although I fear they might be getting a hefty price hike.
I hope they don't raise in points too much, could see the kit going up in money cost, as is its actually a good buy and you know GW won't let that stand for much longer. Especially if they actually got better.
107700
Post by: alextroy
 AngryAngel80 wrote:I like the stat improvement on the MBH, so far I am pleased. I will be less so if they can't squad up still as I have enough for a couple squads just to get the bonus to hit. I don't care if they don't get a bonus though, means they can be in teams of two but they were my game plan to move up with my marines to give the stink cloud support and covering fire.
GW, just this once, treat me right and don't give me the smack down for actually buying things.
That statblock is looking rather like a Dreadnought (a really fast dreadnought). I wouldn't be surprised if they went solo, either per slot or via a split into units at deployment method.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
I don't mind if they end up like a leman russ and you buy them together and they roll solo at deployment, that is fine. I just don't want dead models in my collection. They made them before to roll as a group, would be pretty shameful to then dial it back and make purchases pointless.
I'm not going to panic fear monger but I'm hoping for the best.
121131
Post by: Catulle
 JohnnyHell wrote:Catulle wrote:Wakshaani wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
Did you miss the caveats on it?
-Only usable during Assault Doctrine
-Only triggers on unmodified 6s to Wound
It's strong, but it doesn't seem OMGBROKEN!!11!
Also only once per game, so better time it just right.
But, Wak, it *doesn't say* "...per game" therefore Rules-As-Written, it *must* be interpreted as once... ever. In your entire 40k career.
Cue the inevitable YMDC thread with some people arguing just that...
Truly, the Imperium is the fate we deserve
19754
Post by: puma713
AngryAngel80 wrote:I don't mind if they end up like a leman russ and you buy them together and they roll solo at deployment, that is fine. I just don't want dead models in my collection. They made them before to roll as a group, would be pretty shameful to then dial it back and make purchases pointless.
My Aeldari Airwing would agree.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
Hey anyone they do that to has right to complain. Could you imagine if they took squadron away from the leman russ ? How many redundant tanks would most guard players have ? Or take it away from Valks ? That would make me cry even more.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
I also like the idea of not being locked into bringing full sets of 3, so you could bring 2 or 4 of them.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
Not being forced for 3 to hit better than a guard is good stuff. So hope they at least keep bought as squads of 3, even if they have them fielded individual. That would even be ideal for the stink cloud net and spreading it out as far as you can.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Even if they need to squad, being able to run 3x1 or 2x2 allows you to support more squads for less points.
74088
Post by: Irbis
H.B.M.C. wrote:Imagine a world where Daemon Engines are better at hitting things in HTH combat than Guardsmen.
Yup, imagine a world where funny looking roomba with silly legs and short teeth in bad position is somehow better at hitting things than a veteran soldier 
AngryAngel80 wrote:Hey anyone they do that to has right to complain. Could you imagine if they took squadron away from the leman russ ? How many redundant tanks would most guard players have ? Or take it away from Valks ? That would make me cry even more.
Can you imagine if they took an army, invalidated nearly every single infantry squad it had, nerfed every single weapon besides basic boltgun into the ground invalidating half of infantry squads even harder, then took extremely limited special wargear the army had and made it nearly impossible to take invalidating infantry from third angle? 
Oh wait, you don't need to imagine, because that's what clueless idiot writer did to Deathwatch. I find it funny now that people were afraid of it being blanderized into oblivion by making it part of Codex: SM because writer managed to destroy all the fun it had on his own and the Codex inclusion was in fact the only thing that kept the faction afloat...
It's like someone took Eldar, buffed Guardians somewhat but then nerfed all Aspect Warriors and wraiths into the ground, limited psykers to 1 per army and deleted shuriken weapons from everything but Guardians 
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Those "short teeth" are almost the same length as that veteran's soldiers arms.
I also really think that this "my army got hit by something bad, so everyone else deserves to be punished" attitude needs to go away. It is extremely toxic and adds absolutely nothing but hostility to this forum.
If your army got something (or everything) taken away, I'm sorry for your loss and feel free to complain about it. Being a xenos player, I do understand how you feel about it and honestly wish that GW would stop trashing people's armies for no reason.
But if you are getting vindictive and wish for other people's army being hit by disaster as well? What the hell is wrong with you?
Not just targeted at you, Irbis, there are many people acting like this recently. This is directed at all of you.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
Hey I hear ya. A number of my squads got turned around and upside down in the last Deathwatch supplement. I wasn't very pleased with some of the changes, it just felt sort of strange and I don't enjoy what they did with the frag cannon, which I loved and got many of, even if it was a point sink, now only to find them ok. Really I could complain in great detail, I'm just hoping they don't bone me over with my deathguard stuff.
I am working to bring them deathwatch up to make sense but it'll take some cash to get the squads made right and even then some models won't end up being taken. I get what they wanted to do with the book, I just wish it didn't screw over my setups and make their units kind of bland in the process.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
 Irbis wrote:Yup, imagine a world where funny looking roomba with silly legs and short teeth in bad position is somehow better at hitting things than a veteran soldier
You can't possibly be that clueless Irbis (despite your persistent attempts to prove otherwise). There are more Daemon Engines than just that, and you know it. Stop posting just to hear the sound of your own typing.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
I don't think the MBH looks like a roomba, as a side note.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
I would totally buy a roomba that looks like a MBH though.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
MBH is probably one of the best GW designed Daemonengines, especially because the "fleshy bits" fit DG. Whilest the front maintains a rather mechanical look. Allbeit as a concept it's basically the Portal turret but nurglyfied , atleast it kinda reminds me of it Automatically Appended Next Post:  Jidmah wrote:I would totally buy a roomba that looks like a MBH though.
Flat is better, because you can witness cats ride flat ones. And everybody knows the only thing better then a squig rider is a cat riding something.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Jidmah wrote:I would totally buy a roomba that looks like a MBH though.
... ya know I would do.... do you think if we started a letter writing campaign to GW customer service they'd put it in the Warhammer swag store? 
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
BrianDavion wrote: Jidmah wrote:I would totally buy a roomba that looks like a MBH though.
... ya know I would do.... do you think if we started a letter writing campaign to GW customer service they'd put it in the Warhammer swag store?
What about a squig one?
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Not Online!!! wrote:BrianDavion wrote: Jidmah wrote:I would totally buy a roomba that looks like a MBH though.
... ya know I would do.... do you think if we started a letter writing campaign to GW customer service they'd put it in the Warhammer swag store?
What about a squig one?
how about an entire line of them,
a space Marine rhino one,
a DG MBC
A Ork Squiq
A sister of battle Exorcist
...
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
BrianDavion wrote:Not Online!!! wrote:BrianDavion wrote: Jidmah wrote:I would totally buy a roomba that looks like a MBH though.
... ya know I would do.... do you think if we started a letter writing campaign to GW customer service they'd put it in the Warhammer swag store?
What about a squig one?
how about an entire line of them,
a space Marine rhino one,
a DG MBC
A Ork Squiq
A sister of battle Exorcist
...
Allbeit i dread the prices GW would demand for them / licenscing
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Not Online!!! wrote:BrianDavion wrote:Not Online!!! wrote:BrianDavion wrote: Jidmah wrote:I would totally buy a roomba that looks like a MBH though.
... ya know I would do.... do you think if we started a letter writing campaign to GW customer service they'd put it in the Warhammer swag store?
What about a squig one?
how about an entire line of them,
a space Marine rhino one,
a DG MBC
A Ork Squiq
A sister of battle Exorcist
...
Allbeit i dread the prices GW would demand for them / licenscing
I'm sure they';d charge 1000 bucks, for one that is about the same level of quality as a 100-200 dollar one
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Too early for the whole apple stand debacle meme?
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
I see absolutely nothing in common between Games workshop and a computer company with a history of selling over priced products that are seldome any better then the compeition but are bought up by their legion of loyal fans anyway. ABSOLUTLY NOTHING
except you know... everything
85390
Post by: bullyboy
Irbis wrote:
Oh wait, you don't need to imagine, because that's what clueless idiot writer did to Deathwatch. I find it funny now that people were afraid of it being blanderized into oblivion by making it part of Codex: SM because writer managed to destroy all the fun it had on his own and the Codex inclusion was in fact the only thing that kept the faction afloat...
It's like someone took Eldar, buffed Guardians somewhat but then nerfed all Aspect Warriors and wraiths into the ground, limited psykers to 1 per army and deleted shuriken weapons from everything but Guardians
Dude, I'm not sure what pirated Deathwatch supplement you got, but mine doesn't look like that at all.
19754
Post by: puma713
BrianDavion wrote:Not Online!!! wrote:BrianDavion wrote: Jidmah wrote:I would totally buy a roomba that looks like a MBH though.
... ya know I would do.... do you think if we started a letter writing campaign to GW customer service they'd put it in the Warhammer swag store?
What about a squig one?
how about an entire line of them,
a space Marine rhino one,
a DG MBC
A Ork Squiq
A sister of battle Exorcist
...
Except the Exorcist would fire all that it swept up out of its organ pipes in the back...
54233
Post by: AduroT
If you’re going to do a roomba it Needs to be a Ripper Swarm.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
AduroT wrote:If you’re going to do a roomba it Needs to be a Ripper Swarm.
that is called a small dog... 
123250
Post by: Sotahullu
84439
Post by: Marshal Loss
New Typhus stats:
+1M, +2A!
113031
Post by: Voss
Wow that death vision is worded terribly.
You can use it if enemy characters are visible to it. OK
'Until that fight is resolved.' Wait, what?
What fight? The way its written, you get extra attacks and rerolls until... a specific fight that isn't actually happening gets resolved.
So I guess you point at a specific enemy character, then spend the game avoiding that model and diving into big units of enemies instead, and the bonuses never end.
84851
Post by: Tiberius501
Voss wrote:Wow that death vision is worded terribly.
You can use it if enemy characters are visible to it. OK
'Until that fight is resolved.' Wait, what?
What fight? The way its written, you get extra attacks and rerolls until... a specific fight that isn't actually happening gets resolved.
So I guess you point at a specific enemy character, then spend the game avoiding that model and diving into big units of enemies instead, and the bonuses never end.
I assume the main Death Visions rule, before it mentions the abilities, will explain that it happens in a selected fight phase once per battle. Automatically Appended Next Post: Plez, can we haz some Blood Angels leaks?
126997
Post by: Doohicky
So could be seeing terminator armour not losing 1 movement but also no longer being 4++. Helps Typhus, but would be probably net negative on the blightlords and deathshroud.
Destroyer hive also not being shown as a pistol
113031
Post by: Voss
/shrug
maybe, but the preview mentions once per battle multiple times, you'd think they'd add the other condition if there was one.
'that fight is resolved' in the vision itself is very vague. Is it resolved after consolidation? Is it 'resolved' if there are still enemies in engagement range, or you consolidate into new enemies?
I might be overthinking something, but clear cut delineations and durations shouldn't be a big ask.
84439
Post by: Marshal Loss
Doohicky wrote:
So could be seeing terminator armour not losing 1 movement but also no longer being 4++. Helps Typhus, but would be probably net negative on the blightlords and deathshroud.
Destroyer hive also not being shown as a pistol
Might be the same as Relic Terminator Armour in the SM book - 5++ instead of 4++ but no halving advance rolls. I hope he & they keep the 4++ but it probably wouldn't be the end of the world, pending points costs etc
97198
Post by: Nazrak
I'm not sure I'd read too much into the in-box data sheets – haven't there been other disparities between them and the Codex rules for Space Marines and Necrons?
101463
Post by: Lord Perversor
Voss wrote:Wow that death vision is worded terribly.
You can use it if enemy characters are visible to it. OK
'Until that fight is resolved.' Wait, what?
What fight? The way its written, you get extra attacks and rerolls until... a specific fight that isn't actually happening gets resolved.
So I guess you point at a specific enemy character, then spend the game avoiding that model and diving into big units of enemies instead, and the bonuses never end.
The snippet of lore at the stratagem seems to imply that's the idea.
It's a bonus to deal with a large number of enemies in melee until you can reach (or that character reach you) like *Sanguinius faced hordes of enemies before reach Horus*
84439
Post by: Marshal Loss
 Nazrak wrote:I'm not sure I'd read too much into the in-box data sheets – haven't there been other disparities between them and the Codex rules for Space Marines and Necrons?
Occasionally yep but the overwhelming majority were on the money, so it's safe enough to take it at face value, albeit with an * beside it
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
Voss wrote:/shrug
maybe, but the preview mentions once per battle multiple times, you'd think they'd add the other condition if there was one.
'that fight is resolved' in the vision itself is very vague. Is it resolved after consolidation? Is it 'resolved' if there are still enemies in engagement range, or you consolidate into new enemies?
I might be overthinking something, but clear cut delineations and durations shouldn't be a big ask.
It's resolved when the model in question has resolved all of its attacks, and the next unit is picked to fight.
113031
Post by: Voss
Laughing Man wrote:Voss wrote:/shrug
maybe, but the preview mentions once per battle multiple times, you'd think they'd add the other condition if there was one.
'that fight is resolved' in the vision itself is very vague. Is it resolved after consolidation? Is it 'resolved' if there are still enemies in engagement range, or you consolidate into new enemies?
I might be overthinking something, but clear cut delineations and durations shouldn't be a big ask.
It's resolved when the model in question has resolved all of its attacks, and the next unit is picked to fight.
It definitely isn't.
When a unit is picked 'to fight' it piles in, resolves its attacks and then consolidates. You don't pick before the consolidate move.
If it consolidates into new enemy units, they are now eligible 'to fight.'
It isn't at all clear to me if 'that fight' pertains solely to the activating model, anyone that is fighting with it, or the fight phase itself, or if a fight lasts until the model has no enemies within engagement range. But a unit's 'fight' definitely is NOT resolved between its attacks and its consolidate move, whatever the exact definition is.
114276
Post by: Biasn
http://imgur.com/gallery/6QQBr9o blurra BA leaks. Did sth change in unit profiles?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Did what change in unit profiles?
100848
Post by: tneva82
Nazrak wrote:I'm not sure I'd read too much into the in-box data sheets – haven't there been other disparities between them and the Codex rules for Space Marines and Necrons?
There were some typoes(like weapon that improves target's save...) and special rules were missing but stats themselves atleast for necrons were pretty accurate i think. Typoes excluded
114276
Post by: Biasn
Sorry i meant something with "sth"
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Doohicky wrote:
So could be seeing terminator armour not losing 1 movement but also no longer being 4++. Helps Typhus, but would be probably net negative on the blightlords and deathshroud.
Destroyer hive also not being shown as a pistol
The other terminators also get extra wounds, so whether that's a negative or not will depend on their points costs.
Destroyer hive as a pistol was worthless and felt wrong anyways, hopefully they turn it into a decent special rule instead.
126997
Post by: Doohicky
Jidmah wrote:
Destroyer hive as a pistol was worthless and felt wrong anyways, hopefully they turn it into a decent special rule instead.
With you in a heartbeat there.
I feel like the DG auras/weapons were very much experimental, some worked some didn't. I'm fine with that. Hopefully they have learned.
Unfortunately learned also will likely mean the super sprayer will be nerfed.
But... if synergy works better I'm happy to drop crutches
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Jidmah wrote:Doohicky wrote:
So could be seeing terminator armour not losing 1 movement but also no longer being 4++. Helps Typhus, but would be probably net negative on the blightlords and deathshroud.
Destroyer hive also not being shown as a pistol
The other terminators also get extra wounds, so whether that's a negative or not will depend on their points costs.
Destroyer hive as a pistol was worthless and felt wrong anyways, hopefully they turn it into a decent special rule instead.
IMHO it makes more sense as a mortal wound aura.
16233
Post by: deleted20250424
Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.
14
Post by: Ghaz
 TalonZahn wrote:Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.
The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.
84851
Post by: Tiberius501
My initial feelings is I’m slightly disappointed with the rules. But that said, marines are strong enough without them so that’s fine. Just nothing too exciting for me, but maybe when I get the book and properly take it all in I’ll be more happy.
On the other hand, all the crusade stuff GW has shown off seems awesome so I’m happy enough.
16233
Post by: deleted20250424
True, minus the Shield on the Chapter Symbol and a bit less Red.
[Edit] Here's this also - https://imgur.com/a/qRjfgBe
84439
Post by: Marshal Loss
 Ghaz wrote: TalonZahn wrote:Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.
The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.
Good pickup - likely an intentional move by GW so fans with Knights of Blood armies can still play their forces in the wake of the KoB's destruction
16233
Post by: deleted20250424
Probably along the same line as those Purple Dorn kids.... can't recall their name at the moment.
Soul Drinkers?
They got brought back as all Primaris Chapter.
14
Post by: Ghaz
 Marshal Loss wrote: Ghaz wrote: TalonZahn wrote:Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.
The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.
Good pickup - likely an intentional move by GW so fans with Knights of Blood armies can still play their forces in the wake of the KoB's destruction
Since the Knights of Blood only show up in the fluff in connection with the Devastation of Baal where they're destroyed, I'm pretty sure anyone who painted a Knights of the Blood force weren't concerned if they were an 'active' chapter in the current background.
84439
Post by: Marshal Loss
Ghaz wrote: Marshal Loss wrote: Ghaz wrote: TalonZahn wrote:Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.
The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.
Good pickup - likely an intentional move by GW so fans with Knights of Blood armies can still play their forces in the wake of the KoB's destruction
Since the Knights of Blood only show up in the fluff in connection with the Devastation of Baal where they're destroyed, I'm pretty sure anyone who painted a Knights of the Blood force weren't concerned if they were an 'active' chapter in the current background.
They'd shown up previously in the 5th ed BA book, and their destruction wasn't stated until the publication of DoB, so I'm sure there were fans who were concerned with them not being an "active" chapter. Regardless, they've also appeared in other lore unconnected with the Devastation of Baal.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Ghaz wrote: TalonZahn wrote:Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.
The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.
it could well be intentional. when a chapter dies it's heraldry is often re-used (it's often a way to quietly honor the dead chapter without nesscarily recylcing the name) a good example of this is the mentors legion who inherited the colour scheme of the star scorpions.
I could see Dante quietly arranging for the knights of blood's colour scheme to be re-used as a way to honor their sacrifice.
30672
Post by: Theophony
BrianDavion wrote: Ghaz wrote: TalonZahn wrote:Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.
The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.
it could well be intentional. when a chapter dies it's heraldry is often re-used (it's often a way to quietly honor the dead chapter without nesscarily recylcing the name) a good example of this is the mentors legion who inherited the colour scheme of the star scorpions.
I could see Dante quietly arranging for the knights of blood's colour scheme to be re-used as a way to honor their sacrifice.
Honor their sacrifice and cover up the loss of a chapter in the process. People who saw the old symbol or read stories of their exploits will see the emblem and think the chapter is the same and just some error in the history being told. Anyone linking the symbol to the exploits of the fallen chapter will be purged and the only things known in the future will be that the chapter has thrived for more millennia than they actual have. Revisionist history with an inquisitorial seal.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Marshal Loss wrote: Ghaz wrote: Marshal Loss wrote: Ghaz wrote: TalonZahn wrote:Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.
The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.
Good pickup - likely an intentional move by GW so fans with Knights of Blood armies can still play their forces in the wake of the KoB's destruction
Since the Knights of Blood only show up in the fluff in connection with the Devastation of Baal where they're destroyed, I'm pretty sure anyone who painted a Knights of the Blood force weren't concerned if they were an 'active' chapter in the current background.
They'd shown up previously in the 5th ed BA book, and their destruction wasn't stated until the publication of DoB, so I'm sure there were fans who were concerned with them not being an "active" chapter. Regardless, they've also appeared in other lore unconnected with the Devastation of Baal.
The writing was on the wall, so to speak, in their first appearance in the background in the 5th edition codex. One which was to be proven true.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
Come rules leaks for the bloated ones, so close to turkey day, release the leaks. Think of the nurglings.
84439
Post by: Marshal Loss
Ghaz wrote: Marshal Loss wrote: Ghaz wrote: Marshal Loss wrote: Ghaz wrote: TalonZahn wrote:Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.
The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.
Good pickup - likely an intentional move by GW so fans with Knights of Blood armies can still play their forces in the wake of the KoB's destruction
Since the Knights of Blood only show up in the fluff in connection with the Devastation of Baal where they're destroyed, I'm pretty sure anyone who painted a Knights of the Blood force weren't concerned if they were an 'active' chapter in the current background.
They'd shown up previously in the 5th ed BA book, and their destruction wasn't stated until the publication of DoB, so I'm sure there were fans who were concerned with them not being an "active" chapter. Regardless, they've also appeared in other lore unconnected with the Devastation of Baal.
The writing was on the wall, so to speak, in their first appearance in the background in the 5th edition codex. One which was to be proven true.
For sure, but there is a huge difference between the writing being on the wall, which is extremely common in 40k to the point that it's hardly noteworthy, and actual destruction. Regardless, the above point (that it would have been perfectly reasonable for fans to be disappointed with their demise) clearly stands.
BrianDavion wrote: Ghaz wrote: TalonZahn wrote:Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.
The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.
it could well be intentional. when a chapter dies it's heraldry is often re-used (it's often a way to quietly honor the dead chapter without nesscarily recylcing the name) a good example of this is the mentors legion who inherited the colour scheme of the star scorpions.
I could see Dante quietly arranging for the knights of blood's colour scheme to be re-used as a way to honor their sacrifice.
Dante flat out says in Destruction of Baal that he won't rebuild the chapter; could even just be the High Lords or w/e doing the same thing, like with the Star Scorpions example you cited. Plenty of justification either way!
e: grammar
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
Am I the only one who noticed that none of the Blood Angels specific dreadnoughts are CORE? I expected the libby dread not to have it, because it's a character, but why not Furiosas?
AngryAngel80 wrote:Come rules leaks for the bloated ones, so close to turkey day, release the leaks. Think of the nurglings.
I'll second that. Can't wait to see the first Chaos codex of 9th edition.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Honestly if GW were writing to fluff, Death Company variants wouldn't be core for the same reason Flayed Ones and Destroyers aren't core for Necrons.
I expect preferential treatment though because Blood Angels players will be whiners and are super used to being treated special.
84439
Post by: Marshal Loss
What will happen to CSM Plagues when the DG book drops? Will they benefit form the 2W/inevitable weapon changes - and what about other units, if the DG keep them (e.g. "Chaos Lord" or "Possessed"). Very curious.
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Honestly if GW were writing to fluff, Death Company variants wouldn't be core for the same reason Flayed Ones and Destroyers aren't core for Necrons.
I expect preferential treatment though because Blood Angels players will be whiners and are super used to being treated special.
Death Company units are core. Death Company characters, less so.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Yes, but they shouldn't be.
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
Debatable given Veterans and Devastators have the keyword as well, but honestly it would be reasonable to lose it and just make DC characters buff off the Death Company keyword rather than both Death Company and Core. On the other, the current setup keeps them from buffing DC Dreadnoughts or themselves still, so I get why they did it this way.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Laughing Man wrote:
Debatable given Veterans and Devastators have the keyword as well, but honestly it would be reasonable to lose it and just make DC characters buff off the Death Company keyword rather than both Death Company and Core. On the other, the current setup keeps them from buffing DC Dreadnoughts or themselves still, so I get why they did it this way.
Unit that BA doesn't fluffiwise WANT to see on field and whose sole purpose is to die in battle doesn't exactly feel like core...
But the supplement does have bunch of nerfs. No more 3d6" charge(+1 to hit and can choose which modifiers to charge roll apply), the redeployment stratagem for jump packs happens with turn delay, death company pre-game move capped at 12"(and 9" away from enemy), no "can't overshoot me on charge" relic(though can get "can fall back and charge and reroll charges" special issue wargear). And heroic intervene stratagem now only works on sanguinary guard.
Still going to be strong as they started among top dogs of marines. One thing still unclear is did sanguinary guard get nerfed at all from one of the most cost efficient units in the game from the faq version.
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
tneva82 wrote:
Unit that BA doesn't fluffiwise WANT to see on field and whose sole purpose is to die in battle doesn't exactly feel like core...
But the supplement does have bunch of nerfs. No more 3d6" charge(+1 to hit and can choose which modifiers to charge roll apply), the redeployment stratagem for jump packs happens with turn delay, death company pre-game move capped at 12"(and 9" away from enemy), no "can't overshoot me on charge" relic(though can get "can fall back and charge and reroll charges" special issue wargear). And heroic intervene stratagem now only works on sanguinary guard.
Still going to be strong as they started among top dogs of marines. One thing still unclear is did sanguinary guard get nerfed at all from one of the most cost efficient units in the game from the faq version.
Sure, but they also have a ton of synergy even in the fluff with the Chaplains, who have a core restriction on their prayers. Would be pretty silly to have their chaplain escort unable to do anything with them.
Bit sad about the nerfs, but on the other hand there's a lot of neat stuff in there as well like doubling up on WL traits and giving a sergeant a relic. Plus the accuracy bonus on the new Descent of Angels is nice, although the anti-synergy with our chapter tactic isn't.
Doesn't look like SG got nerfed, as they're still 30ppm, although power fists actually cost points now instead of being the same cost as the sanguine options.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
CORE is an abstract game mechanic to control aura interaction and is in no way related to fluff.
Get this into your heads people, we don't need to do a full analysis of the heresy each time GW gives someone a keyword.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
And they should. This has nothing to do with them. The example given was Destroyers, who are not Core, and how this should apply to Death Company as well. The Necron non-Core units all make sense from a fluff perspective: 1. Praetorians aren't part of the standard Necron command structure. Not Core. 2. Canoptek units are automotons, therefore not Core. 3. Flayed Ones are diseased Necrons who other Necrons don't want to be around. Not Core. 4. Destroyers are a cult that are slowly losing their minds to wanton bloodthirsty destruction. Also not Core. Blood Angels have parallels with three of those things: 1. They're not part of the standard Blood Angel company structure, being ad-hoc units made of those that have fallen to their flaw. 2. They're are technically 'diseased' and kept apart from the standard Blood Angels (although obviously BAs aren't afraid of DC Marines, and actually venerate them for their sacrifice, intentional or otherwise). 3. They have lost their minds to wanton bloodthirsty destruction. I don't know why you're bringing up Devastators or Veterans. These are regular Marines. They don't exist in the same number as, say, Tactical Marines or Intercessors, but they are core to a Marine force. Death Company, by their very nature, are not. Some Blood Angel armies might be lucky enough to have no Death Company in their ranks come the start of a battle. They should benefit from Strats/abilities that are specific to them, and not to Core units. Chaplains can buff them in the same way that Destroyer Lords buff Destroyers, but not Core Necron units. Anyway, that's the point of view that I'm trying to get across. 
101864
Post by: Dudeface
H.B.M.C. wrote:And they should. This has nothing to do with them. The example given was Destroyers, who are not Core, and how this should apply to Death Company as well.
The Necron non-Core units all make sense from a fluff perspective:
1. Praetorians aren't part of the standard Necron command structure. Not Core.
2. Canoptek units are automotons, therefore not Core.
3. Flayed Ones are diseased Necrons who other Necrons don't want to be around. Not Core.
4. Destroyers are a cult that are slowly losing their minds to wanton bloodthirsty destruction. Also not Core.
Blood Angels have parallels with three of those things:
1. They're not part of the standard Blood Angel company structure, being ad-hoc units made of those that have fallen to their flaw.
2. They're are technically 'diseased' and kept apart from the standard Blood Angels (although obviously BAs aren't afraid of DC Marines, and actually venerate them for their sacrifice, intentional or otherwise).
3. They have lost their minds to wanton bloodthirsty destruction.
I don't know why you're bringing up Devastators or Veterans. These are regular Marines. They don't exist in the same number as, say, Tactical Marines or Intercessors, but they are core to a Marine force. Death Company, by their very nature, are not. Some Blood Angel armies might be lucky enough to have no Death Company in their ranks come the start of a battle.
They should benefit from Strats/abilities that are specific to them, and not to Core units. Chaplains can buff them in the same way that Destroyer Lords buff Destroyers, but not Core Necron units.
Anyway, that's the point of view that I'm trying to get across.
If you want a more parallel example, wulfen and wulfen dreads aren't core, I'd pitch them at the same level of "coreness" as death company.
69321
Post by: JWBS
Nah not really. Death Company have been lurking under the surface of the BA core identity pretty much since their inception. Wolfen basically just happened when one of the many mediocre 40K fluff writers said "Err, let's do a Wulfen curse for the Space Wolves, a bit like the Blood Angels, yeah?" and the guy next to him said "Ok sounds good enough".
101864
Post by: Dudeface
JWBS wrote:Nah not really. Death Company have been lurking under the surface of the BA core identity pretty much since their inception. Wolfen basically just happened when one of the many mediocre 40K fluff writers said "Err, let's do a Wulfen curse for the Space Wolves, a bit like the Blood Angels, yeah?" and the guy next to him said "Ok sounds good enough".
Smaller number of troops = check
Outside of core organisation = check
Chapter considers them a curse/secret = check
When they began to exist isn't relevant, or even how. The point is the maintain a very similar position in the chapters organisation.
Is the destroyer curse not a core part of the necrons identity?
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
I'd have to say the core thing I don't think GW thinks about too much. It's more there as a mechanic to limit auras and not so much a fluff reason for it. At least from how it feels to me, something tacked on to just limit power in lists.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
AngryAngel80 wrote:I'd have to say the core thing I don't think GW thinks about too much. It's more there as a mechanic to limit auras and not so much a fluff reason for it. At least from how it feels to me, something tacked on to just limit power in lists.
There's not enough books out to judge but from what we have, they're at best inconsistent and at worst just throwing it out at random.
69321
Post by: JWBS
You don't get extra points for italicising core, or else I would have done it myself, and that checklist means literally nothing, you could add "Assault troops (check) and Unreasonably angry (check)" and they'd also be irrelevant similarities. The Wulfen have existed for about as long as the DC, there's some snippets in SW 2E. The point I was making is that DC have been a BA mainstay, whereas Wulfen for a long time were a couple of single paragraphs and pretty much that's it.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
JWBS wrote:You don't get extra points for italicising core, or else I would have done it myself, and that checklist means literally nothing, you could add "Assault troops (check) and Unreasonably angry (check)" and they'd also be irrelevant similarities. The Wulfen have existed for about as long as the DC, there's some snippets in SW 2E. The point I was making is that DC have been a BA mainstay, whereas Wulfen for a long time were a couple of single paragraphs and pretty much that's it.
Destroyers are a necron mainstay, they're not core. Rhinos are a ubiquitous mainstay to many armies and not core. There is no rhyme or reason why death company would get it and those others wouldn't if your logic is determined by existing for a long time and being a unit lots of people take.
69321
Post by: JWBS
As has already been pointed out, Core is just a buff management mechanic. By arguing that DC shouldn't be core, you're literally just saying that DC should be buff-gimped, or have a distinct buff system because, reasons. Why are you arguing this?
101864
Post by: Dudeface
JWBS wrote:As has already been pointed out, Core is just a buff management mechanic. By arguing that DC shouldn't be core, you're literally just saying that DC should be buff-gimped, or have a distinct buff system because, reasons. Why are you arguing this?
Because we were given core as this:
Core Units
The Core keyword is used to identify units that form the fighting… well, core, of an army. These are most commonly represented by units of line infantry, though this doesn’t mean it’s exclusive to Troops, nor just Infantry.
Yet units that do form the core of some armies don't have it, while other units that shouldn't be forming the core of a fighting force do and it's utterly ad-hoc which side a unit falls on so far.
If they just wanted a buff toggle switch they shouldn't be tying it to a fluff based concept.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
I'd argue that marketing texts are neither fluff nor rules
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Jidmah wrote:I'd argue that marketing texts are neither fluff nor rules
Whilst that's true enough, if a buff control button was wanted I just think there's other words they could key off that are less provocative, very evidently what someone considers a "core" part of their army is subjective.
69321
Post by: JWBS
Dudeface wrote:
If they just wanted a buff toggle switch they shouldn't be tying it to a fluff based concept.
So you're annoyed that they've gone for a mildly fluffy naming convention for a game mechanic instead of just rolling with "Buffable Unit" as a keyword. Okay, that would have been infinitely crappier, but I suppose that's a subjective opinion.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Before you start arguing fluff for CORE units, try explaining why three the guys in this picture are CORE and two are not:
Why do DC have the CORE keyword? Because GW wants them to benefit from auras and certain other rules.
Why do Wulfen not have the CORE keyword? Because GW does not want them to benefit from auras and certain other rules.
That's all.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
I think the whole core thing is just GW are very sloppy and trying to make it sound " cool " and then make it seem like it makes sense from a fluff point of view. However, they should have just said " This is here to control what units can use auras and the like so we can limit over powered or problematic combinations somewhat. "
It wouldn't have sounded as cool, but it would have been much more accurate to its seemingly obvious intent.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Jidmah wrote:Before you start arguing fluff for CORE units, try explaining why three the guys in this picture are CORE and two are not:
Why do DC have the CORE keyword? Because GW wants them to benefit from auras and certain other rules.
Why do Wulfen not have the CORE keyword? Because GW does not want them to benefit from auras and certain other rules.
That's all.
I'll give it a go:
3 of them are a unit of line-holding infantry that will regularly receive aid and orders from their leaders to increase their efficiency. The other two are characters which are not directly holding the line and not likely to be receiving direct orders (from themselves oddly enough) to increase their combat efficiency.
It's obviously a slightly murky grey area.
I'm just looking forwards to when units like cultists aren't core to limit buffs despite being the only troops seen for an army. Automatically Appended Next Post: AngryAngel80 wrote:I think the whole core thing is just GW are very sloppy and trying to make it sound " cool " and then make it seem like it makes sense from a fluff point of view. However, they should have just said " This is here to control what units can use auras and the like so we can limit over powered or problematic combinations somewhat. "
It wouldn't have sounded as cool, but it would have been much more accurate to its seemingly obvious intent.
This sums it up really.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
I don';t have an issue with death company having Core, but at the same time if they didn't have it I'd be fine with that.
69321
Post by: JWBS
AngryAngel80 wrote:" This is here to control what units can use auras and the like so we can limit over powered or problematic combinations somewhat. "
They could make it a bit more concise though. Something snappier, less of a mouthfull. A shorthand, does the same job, but something very abreviated. Like "Primary", or something analogous, doesn't really matter what they use.
Or maybe it does
101864
Post by: Dudeface
JWBS wrote: AngryAngel80 wrote:" This is here to control what units can use auras and the like so we can limit over powered or problematic combinations somewhat. "
They could make it a bit more concise though. Something snappier, less of a mouthfull. A shorthand, does the same job, but something very abreviated. Like "Primary", or something analogous, doesn't really matter what they use.
Or maybe it does
This unit is "gak" all units with the "gak" keyword do not receive aura buffs.
Hey Timmy, your new tank got rerolls?
Nah it's gak.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
In coding, tagging negatives is an anti-pattern Explicit and implicit effects and all that...
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
Dudeface wrote:JWBS wrote: AngryAngel80 wrote:" This is here to control what units can use auras and the like so we can limit over powered or problematic combinations somewhat. "
They could make it a bit more concise though. Something snappier, less of a mouthfull. A shorthand, does the same job, but something very abreviated. Like "Primary", or something analogous, doesn't really matter what they use.
Or maybe it does
This unit is "gak" all units with the "gak" keyword do not receive aura buffs.
Hey Timmy, your new tank got rerolls?
Nah it's gak.
Very accurate and haven't we all been there before ?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Core units can also be erratad.
If GW get feedback that Army A is struggling, because their Core buffs overly limit what combinations make strategic sense, they can add that Core keyword to other, select units.
And the exact opposite. If the feedback they get that a primarily narrative intent rule is making certain forces overly flexible and potent? They can errata the problem away.
69321
Post by: JWBS
Yes, that's the spirit
Any unit entry with a  (Fist of Power) is worthy of consideration. Anything without Fist of Power, disregard.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
BrianDavion wrote:I don';t have an issue with death company having Core, but at the same time if they didn't have it I'd be fine with that.
If them having CORE as a keyword means that Chaplains don't have to be rewritten in order to work with them, that makes enough sense to me.
I guess you could have given them a special rule where they count as having CORE for the purposes of abilities possessed by units X, Y and Z, but that also seems like more of a hassle than just giving them the keyword.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
 Dysartes wrote:BrianDavion wrote:I don';t have an issue with death company having Core, but at the same time if they didn't have it I'd be fine with that.
If them having CORE as a keyword means that Chaplains don't have to be rewritten in order to work with them, that makes enough sense to me.
I guess you could have given them a special rule where they count as having CORE for the purposes of abilities possessed by units X, Y and Z, but that also seems like more of a hassle than just giving them the keyword.
Just have a line in the supplement: for Blood Angels and successors, Litanies also apply to all non-character <death company> units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just going to leave this here:
bolterandchainsword.com/topic/367879-blood-angel-codex-leak/
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
JWBS wrote:As has already been pointed out, Core is just a buff management mechanic. By arguing that DC shouldn't be core, you're literally just saying that DC should be buff-gimped, or have a distinct buff system because, reasons. Why are you arguing this?
If Flayed Ones and Destroyers should be hampered fluffwise, so should Death Company. Consistency is key.
113031
Post by: Voss
Dysartes wrote:BrianDavion wrote:I don';t have an issue with death company having Core, but at the same time if they didn't have it I'd be fine with that.
If them having CORE as a keyword means that Chaplains don't have to be rewritten in order to work with them, that makes enough sense to me.
I guess you could have given them a special rule where they count as having CORE for the purposes of abilities possessed by units X, Y and Z, but that also seems like more of a hassle than just giving them the keyword.
No, you give chaplains the ability to buff <Death Company> units. Its very straightforward.
Given that DC can't take actions, and are largely uncontrolled rage monsters, not having Core makes perfect sense.
They're even more limited in what they can do than the necron rage monsters (flayed ones and destroyers).
123250
Post by: Sotahullu
Article for the non-Khornate chapter, Flesh Tearers: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/11/26/how-new-rules-make-the-flesh-tearers-even-more-terrifying/
And new relic too, if Terminator captain is too slow:
69321
Post by: JWBS
Damn shame they haven't painted up any Primaris for these yet.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
JWBS wrote:Damn shame they haven't painted up any Primaris for these yet.
I believe I saw a Bladeguard painted in Flesh Tearers colours in the leak.
44971
Post by: Wakshaani
It would have made more sense to not have Core on the Death Company, but given a model or two (like a specific subset of Chaplain) an aura to boost Death Company.
In essence, "They don't listen to orders normally, but this guy waving a blood chalice around can get them to at least hit the right thing."
7637
Post by: Sasori
looking like a pattern with the Daemon Engines and BS/ WS 3!
117719
Post by: Sunny Side Up
Wakshaani wrote:It would have made more sense to not have Core on the Death Company, but given a model or two (like a specific subset of Chaplain) an aura to boost Death Company.
In essence, "They don't listen to orders normally, but this guy waving a blood chalice around can get them to at least hit the right thing."
Agree. It's not like Necrons don't have buff that work on, say, Destroyer Cult stuff specifically, despite them not being Core. They already have the Death Company keyword to begin with ... so use it!
114276
Post by: Biasn
 Sasori wrote:looking like a pattern with the Daemon Engines and BS/ WS 3!
i hope they will update the engines for all chaos factions at DG release
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
Sunny Side Up wrote:Wakshaani wrote:It would have made more sense to not have Core on the Death Company, but given a model or two (like a specific subset of Chaplain) an aura to boost Death Company.
In essence, "They don't listen to orders normally, but this guy waving a blood chalice around can get them to at least hit the right thing."
Agree. It's not like Necrons don't have buff that work on, say, Destroyer Cult stuff specifically, despite them not being Core. They already have the Death Company keyword to begin with ... so use it!
Again, that would mean DC dreadnought and characters would also benefit from those buffs, and GW clearly didn't want them to have access to prayers or rerolls.
92012
Post by: Argive
LOL.. Lets just bake fight twice into smash captain character. Totaly balanced.. All good.
7637
Post by: Sasori
 Argive wrote:LOL.. Lets just bake fight twice into smash captain character. Totaly balanced.. All good.
Ehh, it locks you into flesh tearers, he's not primaris and he's pretty slow for a smash captain. It's a good ability, but it's only available on him so I would not be that concerned with it to be honest.
Now, if this was something any smash captain could take, there would be issues.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Laughing Man wrote:Sunny Side Up wrote:Wakshaani wrote:It would have made more sense to not have Core on the Death Company, but given a model or two (like a specific subset of Chaplain) an aura to boost Death Company.
In essence, "They don't listen to orders normally, but this guy waving a blood chalice around can get them to at least hit the right thing."
Agree. It's not like Necrons don't have buff that work on, say, Destroyer Cult stuff specifically, despite them not being Core. They already have the Death Company keyword to begin with ... so use it!
Again, that would mean DC dreadnought and characters would also benefit from those buffs, and GW clearly didn't want them to have access to prayers or rerolls.
Applies to none character death company infantry. Done.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Thats some fine looking Flesh Tearer art
92012
Post by: Argive
Sasori wrote: Argive wrote:LOL.. Lets just bake fight twice into smash captain character. Totaly balanced.. All good.
Ehh, it locks you into flesh tearers, he's not primaris and he's pretty slow for a smash captain. It's a good ability, but it's only available on him so I would not be that concerned with it to be honest.
Now, if this was something any smash captain could take, there would be issues.
Perhaps.. Perhaps not.
Jumping out of drop pods t1 for non primaris units is a thing..
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
Or, instead of having to add a line to Chaplains by an easily missed addition in the BA codex that would have to be changed by any new DC units or errata that changes what's Core, we could just, you know, give Death Company the Core keyword.
Also, this solution makes DC eligible for self-only prayers.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Do we really have people complaining about frickin Gabriel fighting twice?
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
The ability he's had for a couple months now? Yes.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Laughing Man wrote:
Or, instead of having to add a line to Chaplains by an easily missed addition in the BA codex that would have to be changed by any new DC units or errata that changes what's Core, we could just, you know, give Death Company the Core keyword.
Also, this solution makes DC eligible for self-only prayers.
We've already been over this once, it boils down to whether you consider core to simply a boolean for rules development with no meaning behind it.
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
Dudeface wrote: Laughing Man wrote:
Or, instead of having to add a line to Chaplains by an easily missed addition in the BA codex that would have to be changed by any new DC units or errata that changes what's Core, we could just, you know, give Death Company the Core keyword.
Also, this solution makes DC eligible for self-only prayers.
We've already been over this once, it boils down to whether you consider core to simply a boolean for rules development with no meaning behind it.
Which it basically is, yes. Otherwise vehicles and centurions core, as they're certainly part of a healthy Chapter breakfast, while scouts wouldn't be.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Laughing Man wrote:Dudeface wrote: Laughing Man wrote:
Or, instead of having to add a line to Chaplains by an easily missed addition in the BA codex that would have to be changed by any new DC units or errata that changes what's Core, we could just, you know, give Death Company the Core keyword.
Also, this solution makes DC eligible for self-only prayers.
We've already been over this once, it boils down to whether you consider core to simply a boolean for rules development with no meaning behind it.
Which it basically is, yes. Otherwise vehicles and centurions core, as they're certainly part of a healthy Chapter breakfast, while scouts wouldn't be.
Yup, but it clearly implies different things to different people due to the use of the term and explanation given. I'll consider a general thread to discuss it.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Sasori wrote:looking like a pattern with the Daemon Engines and BS/ WS 3!
I created a separate thread for Death Guard here, feel free to join us: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/794217.page
100848
Post by: tneva82
Laughing Man wrote:Sunny Side Up wrote:Wakshaani wrote:It would have made more sense to not have Core on the Death Company, but given a model or two (like a specific subset of Chaplain) an aura to boost Death Company.
In essence, "They don't listen to orders normally, but this guy waving a blood chalice around can get them to at least hit the right thing."
Agree. It's not like Necrons don't have buff that work on, say, Destroyer Cult stuff specifically, despite them not being Core. They already have the Death Company keyword to begin with ... so use it!
Again, that would mean DC dreadnought and characters would also benefit from those buffs, and GW clearly didn't want them to have access to prayers or rerolls.
Seeing gw already uses keywords to exclude...no it wouldn't unless gw wanted to.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
you know how it is slayer-fan.people are LOOKING for things to complain about with regards to Marines.
117884
Post by: Duskweaver
I'm actually surprised nobody has complained about BA getting 2 Captains and 4 Lieutenants per detachment (as long as half of them have painted their armour black).
21358
Post by: Dysartes
 Duskweaver wrote:I'm actually surprised nobody has complained about BA getting 2 Captains and 4 Lieutenants per detachment (as long as half of them have painted their armour black).
Please don't give them ideas...
721
Post by: BorderCountess
So, regular Space Marine bikes have gone *poof* from the US webstore, as well as Canada and others. And I don't mean "Out of Stock", I mean -GONE-. They don't appear in a search.
But they still show up on the UK webstore.
Thoughts?
73007
Post by: Grimskul
 Manfred von Drakken wrote:So, regular Space Marine bikes have gone *poof* from the US webstore, as well as Canada and others. And I don't mean "Out of Stock", I mean -GONE-. They don't appear in a search.
But they still show up on the UK webstore.
Thoughts?
Getting reboxed? Seems to be a common thing nowadays.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Manfred von Drakken wrote:So, regular Space Marine bikes have gone *poof* from the US webstore, as well as Canada and others. And I don't mean "Out of Stock", I mean -GONE-. They don't appear in a search.
But they still show up on the UK webstore.
Thoughts?
As noted, it's a reboxing which gives the product a new SKU making it a new product.
92012
Post by: Argive
yeah recon reboxing. Thats usualy the trend.
If they are in the codex and have current plastic models I see no reason why they'd stop selling them.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
As this thread seems to be being used as a general 40k release thread, no matter what the breakaway traitor Death Guard may think ( ) , (and thus this thread should have its title adjusted accordingly), I thought I'd mention that my Sergeant 'Ripper' Jackson just shipped. I know a lot of people ordered theirs online as they didn't want to go into a store to get one (the only store I could get to was closed on that day as they were moving locations - what timing!), so people may start seeing shipping notices from GW cropping up in their inboxes out of the blue. My 'Ripper' is coming with a Solitaire, the only Harli mini I don't already own. Now I can actually build my army!
95983
Post by: punisher357
Any rumors on when the necron psychomancer and chronomancer will be released?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
None currently. The speculation is that it will tie in to a set of more releases in January/February alongside the Flayed Ones, Dark Angels, and Kill Team.
126443
Post by: Matrindur
Seems like a new Cryptek was leaked on WC by mistake?
114004
Post by: Danny76
Character in the new kill team set maybe?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Would be weird for a Kill Team starter to include a character--and the rumor is a new Kill Team starter.
I'd be interested to see what the rest of the image it's cropped from is.
7637
Post by: Sasori
Maybe a Technomancer with a node? Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:
Would be weird for a Kill Team starter to include a character--and the rumor is a new Kill Team starter.
I'd be interested to see what the rest of the image it's cropped from is.
54233
Post by: AduroT
Kanluwen wrote:
Would be weird for a Kill Team starter to include a character--and the rumor is a new Kill Team starter.
I'd be interested to see what the rest of the image it's cropped from is.
7637
Post by: Sasori
That picture also looks to be our first look at the entropic Lance option on the Chronomancer.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Interesting. The Flayed Ones are in there too.
Are there Cryptek profiles missing currently? Could it be one of those?
105436
Post by: Emissary
The chronomancer and psychomancer have not been released yet and we have seen the image for each. The chronomancer has 2 weapon options, so like Sasori mentioned it looks like we finally are seeing the second weapon option for him.
That only leads the control node technomancer as an option not released which this new model may be.
14
Post by: Ghaz
With that big 'shell' on his back like the Technomancer with Canoptek Cloak has, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a replacement for the finecast Cryptek (note that my record on guessing what a new model is is very poor... ).
EDIT: Better pic via War of Sigmar:
123233
Post by: GaroRobe
That's a really cool model. And yay, a new cryptek with legs. Could be the model they're using to replace the current finecast cryptek. He's still on the GW site, but his time is probably coming.
Edit: Ninja'd
77922
Post by: Overread
I'd wager if its new then he's replacing the current finecast one as well. I was surprised GW kept that model around considering their general move away from finecast.
That would leave Necrons with only hero characters and the two original Ctan as the only finecast left in their range. Assuming the Ctan get replaced with larger versions like the Void dragon (same as how they made Greater Demons bigger and such) then that could be a long off future date update.
Heroes they can update ad hock slowly over time.
30672
Post by: Theophony
Willpower failing....don’t order it...stay away...reaching for credit card.... 
123233
Post by: GaroRobe
I always wanted to collect all chaplains. Then I went to do all dreadnoughts. But now, it seems pretty easy to get all crypteks.
*The new guy
*Canoptek scarab cloak
*Plasmancer
*Illuminor Szeras
*The two other unreleased floaty Crypteks
*And I suppose Orikan
*(And the ultimate addition, the dude on the silent kings throne)
What a time to be a Cryptek fan
14
Post by: Ghaz
 GaroRobe wrote:I always wanted to collect all chaplains. Then I went to do all dreadnoughts. But now, it seems pretty easy to get all crypteks.
*(And the ultimate addition, the dude on the silent kings throne)
Despite having a single eye like Crypteks, Hapthatra the Radiant is a Phaeron and not a Cryptek.
126997
Post by: Doohicky
Has ARCANA ASTARTES been used before or is that IA FAQ the first we've seen of it?
You can choose for any <Legion> Tzeentch unit from the
Imperial Armour Compendium to be from the Thousand Sons
Legion. If you do:
• Replace that unit’s <Legion> keyword with Thousand Sons.
• That unit gains the Arcana Astartes keyword.
• That unit can be from one of the nine Great Cults, and so also
gains the <Great Cult> keyword.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Nope, first time I've seen that keyword.
84439
Post by: Marshal Loss
Not new, we've known about it since another FAQ/the FW Legends update on November 9th.
106711
Post by: Necronmaniac05
Well, they said the deathguard were getging the 'bubonic astartes' keyword. So, i guess the Thousand Sons are getting the 'Arcana Astartes' keyword?
102537
Post by: Sgt. Cortez
Necronmaniac05 wrote:Well, they said the deathguard were getging the 'bubonic astartes' keyword. So, i guess the Thousand Sons are getting the 'Arcana Astartes' keyword?
And Grey Knights the Sanctic Astartes keyword apparently.
So, with this document I can even use my Rapiers in DG again, right? Still don't know why they took those away from DG and TS in 8th but I'm happy about this
123233
Post by: GaroRobe
Ghaz wrote: GaroRobe wrote:I always wanted to collect all chaplains. Then I went to do all dreadnoughts. But now, it seems pretty easy to get all crypteks.
*(And the ultimate addition, the dude on the silent kings throne)
Despite having a single eye like Crypteks, Hapthatra the Radiant is a Phaeron and not a Cryptek.
That's even better. Both money-wise and lore-wise. Now there is a canon one eyed phaeron (which I just realized is basically phaeroh ). Long live the Court of the One-eyed King
721
Post by: BorderCountess
Sgt. Cortez wrote:Necronmaniac05 wrote:Well, they said the deathguard were getging the 'bubonic astartes' keyword. So, i guess the Thousand Sons are getting the 'Arcana Astartes' keyword?
And Grey Knights the Sanctic Astartes keyword apparently.
So, with this document I can even use my Rapiers in DG again, right? Still don't know why they took those away from DG and TS in 8th but I'm happy about this
In the Thousand Sons' case I'm sure it's that whole 'turned to dust' thing. So I guess they can field non-dust, non-sorcerer Marines, now?
7637
Post by: Sasori
Looks like there will be a preview for some new models for 2021 on Christmas: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/12/20/sunday-preview-a-very-warhammer-christmas/
I would bet the Technomancer is going to get shown off here officially, curious to see what else we are getting, I'm guessing more Slaanesh and maybe the new Lilith?
26519
Post by: xttz
Last year's xmas preview was fairly light, a couple of character models for AOS and the DA captain with Faith & Fury.
The missing Slaanesh stuff & a DE character seem about right.
56277
Post by: Eldarain
I'd like to see another codex roadmap.
113031
Post by: Voss
I'd rather they didn't waste the opportunity to show us stuff we already know about.
Slaanesh and Dark Eldar are already lined up. A real look at NEW stuff for 2021 would be more appreciated.
|
|
