lordofthegophers wrote: Annoying that whoever is taking these pictures obviously has the WD...yet they can't tell us who's writing the damn books!
From the rumors, I've heard Jeremy Vetock, but I don't know exactly
Yet there is also talk of Mr. Ward. So we shall see in time. I would say that I'd assume MW for 40k as Vetock did the last book, but didn't GK get followed by Necrons? 2 Ward books in a row? So that idea is out the window. I hope Ward didn't do fantasy again, as there were large issues with it, but seeing how point costs have been adjusted, it may be okay this time around, regardless of whether or not he did it. We'll know soon. Post probably seems a bit...awkward in places, but I'm trying to keep a neutral post on my opinions of writers. As such, sidesteps need be taken.
Nor am I. while I could use more Screamers and Plaguebearers, I'd rather just buy them individually than get Bloodletters and Seekers that I won't use.
But I suppose that could all change once the rules are known. I really would like to see some believable rules leaks.
Where the hell are the models everyone wanted. Plastic fiends, new greater deamons etc.
I've been wanting to get a bunch of Fiends since 2nd Ed, just because I always liked the tubular lizard scorpion craziness of them. I don't even care what rules they get, so long as they look bizarre and awesome.
Where the hell are the models everyone wanted. Plastic fiends, new greater deamons etc.
I've been wanting to get a bunch of Fiends since 2nd Ed, just because I always liked the tubular lizard scorpion craziness of them. I don't even care what rules they get, so long as they look bizarre and awesome.
I'll defer my judgement of the new models until better pics, however I am not a huge fan of recent trend of giving nearly every army some big, ludicrously elaborated magic Throne/Chariot/Cannon/Rube Goldberg machine. Not only many of the actual models have silly kitbash feel, it takes away from the effect when just about every army has this big magic whachamacallit. "Special" things aren't special when everyone has loads of them. Same goes for things like Monstrous cavalry and huge big monsters in general.
I understand that they want to keep releasing new stuff, and most of the basic infantry is pretty well covered already. Still, sometimes less is more.
And since PP was brought out once again, am I only one thinking that GW and PP aesthetics seem to be slowly creeping towards each other?
Backfire wrote: I'll defer my judgement of the new models until better pics, however I am not a huge fan of recent trend of giving nearly every army some big, ludicrously elaborated magic Throne/Chariot/Cannon/Rube Goldberg machine. Not only many of the actual models have silly kitbash feel, it takes away from the effect when just about every army has this big magic whachamacallit. "Special" things aren't special when everyone has loads of them. Same goes for things like Monstrous cavalry and huge big monsters in general.
I understand that they want to keep releasing new stuff, and most of the basic infantry is pretty well covered already. Still, sometimes less is more.
And since PP was brought out once again, am I only one thinking that GW and PP aesthetics seem to be slowly creeping towards each other?
Do you think that it went like this?
GW Boss"Have you seen these new enormous models PP are releasing???!!!!??!!!"
Design minion "Yes master, I was thinking...."
GW Boss"I DON'T PAY YOU TO THINK, MAKE SOMETHING LIKE IT IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!"
Design Minion "But master, to do something on that scale would take months of development and planning..."
GW Boss "WHAT?!!! Just turn out any old crap, our idiot customers will eat anything we feed them. have it on my desk by the weekend!!!!"
Design Minion "Yes master, nice master."
I'm sorry, was I claiming that I found them? I just reposted them here.
Play nice kiddies, plenty of room for everybody in the sand box. I'm just glad for the info, don't care where it comes from or who needs the pat on the head.
pretre- how does all this rack up on rumor validity?
We don't usually count leaked pics as rumors. I have to go through and check the Daemons Rumors over the next couple days though. I generally wait for more info, otherwise I have to go through and do multiple updates once we get more info.
A bunch of stuff looks like it came true though. We'll see...
pretre wrote: We don't usually count leaked pics as rumors. I have to go through and check the Daemons Rumors over the next couple days though. I generally wait for more info, otherwise I have to go through and do multiple updates once we get more info.
A bunch of stuff looks like it came true though. We'll see...
Pre-order and release date seem in accordance with the rumors. Plague drones unit... so on. Cool stuff. Thanks for tracking all that mess. I know I follow it.
GW Boss"Have you seen these new enormous models PP are releasing???!!!!??!!!"
Design minion "Yes master, I was thinking...."
GW Boss"I DON'T PAY YOU TO THINK, MAKE SOMETHING LIKE IT IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!"
Design Minion "But master, to do something on that scale would take months of development and planning..."
GW Boss "WHAT?!!! Just turn out any old crap, our idiot customers will eat anything we feed them. have it on my desk by the weekend!!!!"
Design Minion "Yes master, nice master."
I know you are being sarcastic, but to be fair, Warhammer always had large monsters, long before Privateer Press even existed. Back in the day, pretty much every army aside from Bretonnians could take monsters. Granted they weren't the size that they are now, but neither were infantry miniatures. Everything has gotten bigger I think, except for Night Goblins.
I remember when the Warhammer Giant came out, the accompanying White Dwarf article singing its praises stated that large scale monsters and such were the future. Sure enough, they've kept true to that promise, with the standard mixed results.
pretre wrote: We don't usually count leaked pics as rumors. I have to go through and check the Daemons Rumors over the next couple days though. I generally wait for more info, otherwise I have to go through and do multiple updates once we get more info.
A bunch of stuff looks like it came true though. We'll see...
Pre-order and release date seem in accordance with the rumors. Plague drones unit... so on. Cool stuff. Thanks for tracking all that mess. I know I follow it.
Backfire wrote: I'll defer my judgement of the new models until better pics, however I am not a huge fan of recent trend of giving nearly every army some big, ludicrously elaborated magic Throne/Chariot/Cannon/Rube Goldberg machine. Not only many of the actual models have silly kitbash feel, it takes away from the effect when just about every army has this big magic whachamacallit. "Special" things aren't special when everyone has loads of them. Same goes for things like Monstrous cavalry and huge big monsters in general.
I understand that they want to keep releasing new stuff, and most of the basic infantry is pretty well covered already. Still, sometimes less is more.
And since PP was brought out once again, am I only one thinking that GW and PP aesthetics seem to be slowly creeping towards each other?
Do you think that it went like this?
<snip>
No. I'm not talking about having big monsters etc in general, but stylistic things like poses, proportions, decorations etc. Seems to me both have slowly evolved towards similar, somewhat cartoonishly exaggarated visual.
Well, yes, some of them would be nice to I suppose... But really, if I can have rubbertube-scorpion models I might be willing to give up a fair amount of social interaction!
Very exciting. The new models and rules of late seem to have found a certain stride that they've been lacking for years.
I've been dusting off old favourites lately, and the Daemon release promises to play right into that.
I understand that you're trying to give credit where credit is due, but did I say they were my pictures? No, I posted some pictures that I found so that everyone on Dakka can see them - sorry.
I would never try to pass anything off like this as "my own achievement". They are pictures of a White Dwarf taken on a phone, get off your high horse of justice.
Edit: Thank you to the random person who sent the picture of the army book cover to Natfka's blog.
GW Boss"Have you seen these new enormous models PP are releasing???!!!!??!!!"
Design minion "Yes master, I was thinking...."
GW Boss"I DON'T PAY YOU TO THINK, MAKE SOMETHING LIKE IT IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!"
Design Minion "But master, to do something on that scale would take months of development and planning..."
GW Boss "WHAT?!!! Just turn out any old crap, our idiot customers will eat anything we feed them. have it on my desk by the weekend!!!!"
Design Minion "Yes master, nice master."
I know you are being sarcastic, but to be fair, Warhammer always had large monsters, long before Privateer Press even existed. Back in the day, pretty much every army aside from Bretonnians could take monsters. Granted they weren't the size that they are now, but neither were infantry miniatures. Everything has gotten bigger I think, except for Night Goblins.
I remember when the Warhammer Giant came out, the accompanying White Dwarf article singing its praises stated that large scale monsters and such were the future. Sure enough, they've kept true to that promise, with the standard mixed results.
Dude, I remember when the Marauder giant came out. Yes, large models have always been a feature, but it's only latterly they've invented bigger and bigger bases to accommodate them. I do believe that they're now, knowingly or not, getting in a pissing contest with PP over who can introduce the biggest thing. The difference being that, to me, the PP Colossals are some of their best work, whereas the more ambitious GW seem to get the wider they get of the mark, IMO. I say that as a 40k playing, non WM player too.
GW Boss"Have you seen these new enormous models PP are releasing???!!!!??!!!" Design minion "Yes master, I was thinking...." GW Boss"I DON'T PAY YOU TO THINK, MAKE SOMETHING LIKE IT IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!" Design Minion "But master, to do something on that scale would take months of development and planning..." GW Boss "WHAT?!!! Just turn out any old crap, our idiot customers will eat anything we feed them. have it on my desk by the weekend!!!!" Design Minion "Yes master, nice master."
I know you are being sarcastic, but to be fair, Warhammer always had large monsters, long before Privateer Press even existed. Back in the day, pretty much every army aside from Bretonnians could take monsters. Granted they weren't the size that they are now, but neither were infantry miniatures. Everything has gotten bigger I think, except for Night Goblins.
I remember when the Warhammer Giant came out, the accompanying White Dwarf article singing its praises stated that large scale monsters and such were the future. Sure enough, they've kept true to that promise, with the standard mixed results.
Dude, I remember when the Marauder giant came out. Yes, large models have always been a feature, but it's only latterly they've invented bigger and bigger bases to accommodate them.
I think you've got one too many 'biggers' in there. Since 4th edition 40k, the only new base size has been the oval base, and since about as far back in Fantasy, the only new base has been the large monster base. It's a bit deceptive with Fantasy, but a lot of the new 'big' kits have actually been on the extremely old Chariot base, with only a few moving to the 'Aracnorok' base.
azreal13 wrote: I do believe that they're now, knowingly or not, getting in a pissing contest with PP over who can introduce the biggest thing. The difference being that, to me, the PP Colossals are some of their best work, whereas the more ambitious GW seem to get the wider they get of the mark, IMO. I say that as a 40k playing, non WM player too.
It's more than both companies have progressed their respective technologiies to where large kits are cost effective (GW with plastic and PP with metal/resin). GW missing the mark and PP not are purely subjective opinions, however. I find PP's collosals rather silly, moreso than things like the big Fantasy monsters.
And to add to that, PP has a long way to go before they reach FW's resin models (yes, Forgeworld, they are a division of GW afterall). When I see a Reaver/Phantom/Manta sized model from PP, I'll put them on that level playing field with large resin models.
Leth wrote: PP and GW dont have to be adversarial in nature. I see nothing wrong with one seeing an interesting idea and incorporating it into their line.
Really? The two largest companies in a niche market don't need to be adversarial in nature?
Leth wrote: I was talking about amongst the player base. You either have to be PRO GW or PRO PP. Its almost as bad as the GOP and DEMs going at it.
Ah, I see.
In a perfect world that would be nice, but I'm afraid too many people feel the need to feel they made the right call on all the time and money they've invested. I expect the most verbal critics are probably mono system players, whereas the more philosophical posters are also more diverse in their gaming. Just a theory mind.
Leth wrote: I was talking about amongst the player base. You either have to be PRO GW or PRO PP. Its almost as bad as the GOP and DEMs going at it.
No, you don't.
I'd create another topic if you really want to discuss it though.
Sometimes the level of "missing the point" in the world seems like it's gonna reach a critical mass and reality will just collapse in on itself. But then we just wake up the next morning and do it all again.
the Faeit 212 inbox wrote:
I saw some people in the responses wondering about authors. I have the White Dwarf in front of me and Phil Kelly is mentioned as the designer of the Codex, and it isn’t explicitly stated but it seems like Mat Ward is the author of the Fantasy Army Book(there is a section in the back talking about a map that’s included, and that Mat took “a lot of inspiration from Liber Malefic.”
One of the big mysteries right now, is who is the author of the books? Well I wish I had a more definitive answer, but I received this email in the Faeit 212 inbox this evening.
His conclusions after reading his White Dwarf.....
Chaos Daemons (40k)- Phil Kelly
Daemons of Chaos (Fantasy)- Matt Ward
Here is his email, and hopefully we get something a little more concrete in the next day or so.
via the Faeit 212 inbox
I saw some people in the responses wondering about authors. I have the White Dwarf in front of me and Phil Kelly is mentioned as the designer of the Codex, and it isn’t explicitly stated but it seems like Mat Ward is the author of the Fantasy Army Book(there is a section in the back talking about a map that’s included, and that Mat took “a lot of inspiration from Liber Malefic.”
I would think it was the opposite. With Ward doing 40k and Kelly doing Fantasy due to their not normally doing the same book twice in a row but either way I'm ok with it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Thank you pretre. Here I was half-expecting you to say something like "What? His Daemon Army Book was fine. Stop bitching about Ward!".
Well, to put this in context, I don't play Fantasy, but... I have heard that it broke Fantasy in ways worse than the 3.5 Chaos codex broke 40k.
Like I said before makes since to have him do it again. He probly knows all the problem areas he would like to tweek for better balance. Looking forward to the book.
I don't play Fantasy either, but I will admit I'm looking forward to hearing how the Fantasy book turns out. I'm really hoping its as bad as the last one, just to hear people justify it.
Savageconvoy wrote: I don't play Fantasy either, but I will admit I'm looking forward to hearing how the Fantasy book turns out. I'm really hoping its as bad as the last one, just to hear people justify it.
dracpanzer wrote: Just wondering, has there been any rumours at all of Daemons getting a flyer of some kind?
Daemons have flying MCs like Bloodthirsters that, if the new stats are true, can take out land raiders with vector strike. In short, they don't need fliers.
pretre wrote: ... than the 3.5 Chaos codex broke 40k.
Yeah, k, that never happened.
Oh come on... It was hugely unbalanced.
Say what you will about 3.5, but that book had a hell of a lot going for it when it came to customizing your force and Lord. Something that hasn't been seen in a codex since. There may have been balance issues but its 4th Ed successor was unjustifiable and the wrong way to address them.
Also these chariots and plague riders look like gak.
pretre wrote: ... than the 3.5 Chaos codex broke 40k.
Yeah, k, that never happened.
Oh come on... It was hugely unbalanced.
Say what you will about 3.5, but that book had a hell of a lot going for it when it came to customizing your force and Lord. Something that hasn't been seen in a codex since. There may have been balance issues but its 4th Ed predecessor was unjustifiable and the wrong way to address them.
And the ludicrous number of potential combinations are part of what broke it, as it would've been impossible to give thorough playtesting to them all. Also, allowing someone to write a custom army list for their own sub-faction of CSM was a huge fething mistake.
By the by, if something is the next version, it can in no way be the predecessor...
dracpanzer wrote: Just wondering, has there been any rumours at all of Daemons getting a flyer of some kind?
Daemons have flying MCs like Bloodthirsters that, if the new stats are true, can take out land raiders with vector strike. In short, they don't need fliers.
So, we're saying that GW DOESN'T have a plan to push fliers down everyones throat? I'm disappointed...
reds8n wrote: Skull Cannon -- which fires flaming skulls across the battelfield -- is S8, range 36" APdoesn'tgetthrougpowerarmour.
Fly beasties are poisoned 3+ attacks, with I think 3A and W each.
.. seems they might be "jet pack cavalry" ..? Not quite sure how that works as such or if they have to choose a type or what ?
Both Jump and Jet Pack units are not a full unit type, but rather just added onto another full unit type. To this point we've only had Jump/Jet Pack Infantry and Jump Monstrous Creatures (Dreadknight with a Personal Teleporter), but given that GW made this change in 6th edition I figured it would only be time before they made another unit type into Jump or Jet Pack.
In the case of Jet Pack Cavalry, the things they gain from having Jet Packs would be:
They can move using their Jet Pack in the movement phase, in which case they treat difficult they end in as dangerous (which they do already for being cavalry, so big deal there), but they get to ignore terrain they move over and can also move up things vertically easier.
In the assault phase, they can also choose to make the 2D6" thrust move instead of charging.
They also get the Bulky, Deep Strike and Relentless special rules.
So the rules for Jet Pack Cavalry looks to me like it works without issue.
If the Nurgle drones really are jet-pack cavalry and not jet-bikes and their rules are any good, then I'm getting some Plague Toads. Plaguebearers riding giant toads bouncing all over the table sound hilarious and they are much better sculpts than the new flying anteaters.
Anyone have some of these? What size fantasy base do they come on and what size 40k base would they fit on?
Also shame both come in packs of three when everyone is going to want to run them in units of seven. You'd need to run 21 of the damn things to not waste any models. Don't think I'll be doing that. So I'll have to be unfluffy and have one unit of six.
ChaosDog wrote: If the Nurgle drones really are jet-pack cavalry and not jet-bikes and their rules are any good, then I'm getting some Plague Toads. Plaguebearers riding giant toads bouncing all over the table sound hilarious and they are much better sculpts than the new flying anteaters.
Anyone have some of these? What size fantasy base do they come on and what size 40k base would they fit on?
Also shame both come in packs of three when everyone is going to want to run them in units of seven. You'd need to run 21 of the damn things to not waste any models. Don't think I'll be doing that. So I'll have to be unfluffy and have one unit of six.
Now I want a Chaos Daemons army purely so I can spam plague toad conversions. Excellent idea.
pretre wrote: ... than the 3.5 Chaos codex broke 40k.
Yeah, k, that never happened.
Oh come on... It was hugely unbalanced.
Yes, in some ways, the C:CSM 3.5 was unbalanced relative to the other codices of the time.
However, it was also incredibly interesting to play with, offering a wide variety of different builds that catered to different play styles. GW should have used that codex as a model upon which to base every subsequent codex, thereby giving every other army a similar degree of flexibility and variety; there is a certain balance provided when everything is "broken."
Instead, GW decided to make the next C:CSM so bland and boring as to be an afterthought for most players.
wowsmash wrote: Like I said before makes since to have him do it again. He probly knows all the problem areas he would like to tweek for better balance. Looking forward to the book.
Except that thus far, he hasn't produced a single even semi-balanced Fantasy book;
6th edition Wood Elves: Were pretty much top of the pile when they came out due to constant tree-surfing of Waywatchers with their Killing Blow arrows and/or Treemen who were almost imposible to shoot if you didn't have access to a cannon. (so, Empire, Dwarfs & Skaven could shoot it down) Combined with how easy it was for WE's to get flank charges and that you didn't need 1+ ranks to break enemy ranks, WE's suddenly became a by-word for 'cheese'.
Then 7th came along and nerfed them into the ground. (8th simply continued to beat on an already dead horse)
7th edition Orcs & Gobbos: Mat doesn't like the greenies. He didn't really want to do the book. And guess what? O&G's sucked so bad that even die-hard greenskin generals shelved their armies! Outright poorest, crapiest army rules Gw has ever released. (ie: you could give the O&G's player an extra 500pts and still kick the snot out of them with minimal effort!)
7th edition Daemons of Chaos: The book that killed an entire edition of Fantasy... It was so OP that GW was forced to simply blow-up the entire game and write a new edition that specifically nerfed Daemons! (and they're still pretty damn good right now, just not ludicrously beyond everyone else unless you pull out a Slaanesh Ld-bomb!)
Add to the the fact that GW has never once produced an even moderately balanced set of Daemon rules!
5th edition - almost as bad as 7th
6th edition - unplayable due to how borked Daemonic Instability was
7th edition - well, we know how this went!
8th edition - still an insta-win button
I want to try and stay positive about this, but for Fantasy players it's pretty damn hard.
We've had 2 OTT to outright game-breaking books, and one book that was so badly nerfed you'd honestly get laughed at for even suggesting to play said army from Mr.Ward. (on top of GW's historical fails at balancing our army in general)
I just have this sinking feeling that after seeing how heavily nerfed Flamers got in the WD updated, that Daemons are going to get the 7th ed O&G treatment.
Oh well, at least 40k looks pretty promising.
Maybe I'll finally be able to play my Daemons in Fantasy come 9th edition?!
Kelly doing the 40k daemons makes sense. Then he's done all of chaos. Basically he could have built a single giant codex with those two books which is kinda cool.
He signed it 'Matthew Ward' this time. Maybe he's grown up? Could be a hope. Let's see how these two boys handle my favorite army...*sits back and taps fingers speculatively*
Byte wrote: Pretty cool times for 40k. Pretty fast release after DAs.
The release rate is completely unprecedented for GW. Three codicies and two supplment books since September is amazing. And look at the codicies they chose -- CSMs, DA, and CD. Those were the poster children for GW's "blandification" run -- apparently driven by Alessio -- during the middle of 4th ed. Eldar might yet come this year too. And their FAQ efforts have been hugely improved.
Unfortunately I think too much of the fan base is so focused on a few of GW's recent mistakes that they're missing some of the great stuff going on.
I want to seriously injure the man who trolled me like that....*grrrrrrr*
ah, I apologize then my good man. Krump 'im up 'is tiny 'umie 'ead!
I'm somewhat relieved Kelly is doing daemons though, at least the fluff will be good, I'll reserve judgement though, and hope this release is more akin to DE.
also, I'm holding out hope for new Bloodthirster and LoC kits, hopefully in the second wave.
gorgon wrote: The release rate is completely unprecedented for GW.
None of which excuses terribad model releases.
These daemons are shocking.
I like to think I'm reasonably good with the creative aspect of the hobby, and I really can't make definitive opinions about the kits from those blurry pics, other than the overall designs. And those look to me to be very much in-line with current WFB and Daemon aesthetics. Which aren't everyone's cup of tea.
Still, we've seen this kind of drama with most recent releases, only to see opinions shift after people see clearer pics, the actual models, alternate color schemes, etc. It'd take a lot for anything in this bunch to come close to the 1-2 punch of terribad that was the Razorgor and Minotaurs kits.
ChaosDog wrote: If the Nurgle drones really are jet-pack cavalry and not jet-bikes and their rules are any good, then I'm getting some Plague Toads. Plaguebearers riding giant toads bouncing all over the table sound hilarious and they are much better sculpts than the new flying anteaters.
Anyone have some of these? What size fantasy base do they come on and what size 40k base would they fit on?
Also shame both come in packs of three when everyone is going to want to run them in units of seven. You'd need to run 21 of the damn things to not waste any models. Don't think I'll be doing that. So I'll have to be unfluffy and have one unit of six.
They're 40mm Fantasy, which means that they're just a bit too small for 40mm round. 60mm bases would really be required.
Kroothawk wrote: Mat Ward writing the Daemons army book? Still wondering why there is a new Warhammer Fantasy edition next year?
The reason is Alessio Cavatore had his hand in it and they are not so happy that he is making warpath and kings of war in the same city GW is in. I bet they are also pissed about how well Bolt Action is doing.
Kroothawk wrote: Mat Ward writing the Daemons army book? Still wondering why there is a new Warhammer Fantasy edition next year?
The reason is Alessio Cavatore had his hand in it and they are not so happy that he is making warpath and kings of war in the same city GW is in. I bet they are also pissed about how well Bolt Action is doing.
Must be a terrible shock to some people that when you fire talent, it may well be hired by your business rivals. The mindset in the Ivory Tower was probably that he and Priestly et al would go to the nearest cliff and hurl themselves off in despair at being kicked out of GW, well, that or check out operator at Tescos.
Kroothawk wrote: Mat Ward writing the Daemons army book? Still wondering why there is a new Warhammer Fantasy edition next year?
The reason is Alessio Cavatore had his hand in it and they are not so happy that he is making warpath and kings of war in the same city GW is in. I bet they are also pissed about how well Bolt Action is doing.
Must be a terrible shock to some people that when you fire talent, it may well be hired by your business rivals. The mindset in the Ivory Tower was probably that he and Priestly et al would go to the nearest cliff and hurl themselves off in despair at being kicked out of GW, well, that or check out operator at Tescos.
Was that ever actually confirmed that he was fired?
Kroothawk wrote: Mat Ward writing the Daemons army book? Still wondering why there is a new Warhammer Fantasy edition next year?
The reason is Alessio Cavatore had his hand in it and they are not so happy that he is making warpath and kings of war in the same city GW is in. I bet they are also pissed about how well Bolt Action is doing.
Must be a terrible shock to some people that when you fire talent, it may well be hired by your business rivals. The mindset in the Ivory Tower was probably that he and Priestly et al would go to the nearest cliff and hurl themselves off in despair at being kicked out of GW, well, that or check out operator at Tescos.
Was that ever actually confirmed that he was fired?
I can tell you I have some information on fairly good authority that supports my previous statement... Both gentlemen did not leave of their own volition, or rather, if either of them did, they did so as the result of some 'gentle encouragement'.
Doesn't take away that it is a warmachine with the following idea:
GW staff 1:'we need a warmachine for Khorne Daemons. Khorne... Skulls! Hey, mono-Khornearmies don't have shooty things! Let's make a SKULLCANNON!
Other GW staff: 'Yeah! Huzzah! Let's prize it at $75,-'
Even different GW staff: 'Huzzah! Fill the WD with pictures of them!'
thenoobbomb wrote: Doesn't take away that it is a warmachine with the following idea:
GW staff 1:'we need a warmachine for Khorne Daemons. Khorne... Skulls! Hey, mono-Khornearmies don't have shooty things! Let's make a SKULLCANNON!
Other GW staff: 'Yeah! Huzzah! Let's prize it at $75,-'
Even different GW staff: 'Huzzah! Fill the WD with pictures of them!'
You know that Khorne Skull Cannons have been in Warhammer for a looooong time, right?
thenoobbomb wrote: Doesn't take away that it is a warmachine with the following idea:
GW staff 1:'we need a warmachine for Khorne Daemons. Khorne... Skulls! Hey, mono-Khornearmies don't have shooty things! Let's make a SKULLCANNON!
Other GW staff: 'Yeah! Huzzah! Let's prize it at $75,-'
Even different GW staff: 'Huzzah! Fill the WD with pictures of them!'
You know that Khorne Skull Cannons have been in Warhammer for a looooong time, right?
The hellcannon is undivided, right? D:
Or are Skull Cannons even another thing? Even so, it is one lame thing.
Sasori wrote: Now that we know the Authors, let's please not turn this into a Ward Hate/Kelly hate thread.
Can we turn it in to a Kelly Lovefest? Personally, as an Ork player, I can't get enough of Kelly. Balanced, Fluffy, and have longevity to die for.
He wrote an awesome codex there, I personally think it should be held up as a standard for a good army book.
I am very worried, given what others have said about the fantasy ork and goblin book, what will happen if Matthew Ward does to the Orks codex, given that he seems very pro space marines and 'good guys'.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I am very worried, given what others have said about the fantasy ork and goblin book, what will happen if Matthew Ward does to the Orks codex, given that he seems very pro space marines and 'good guys'.
You know he wrote the last DoC army book, right? And Necrons... Neither of those were underpowered or underloved.
Sasori wrote: Now that we know the Authors, let's please not turn this into a Ward Hate/Kelly hate thread.
Can we turn it in to a Kelly Lovefest? Personally, as an Ork player, I can't get enough of Kelly. Balanced, Fluffy, and have longevity to die for.
He wrote an awesome codex there, I personally think it should be held up as a standard for a good army book.
I am very worried, given what others have said about the fantasy ork and goblin book, what will happen if Matthew Ward does to the Orks codex, given that he seems very pro space marines and 'good guys'.
His fluff is OTT, so Ward will be really good at writing Orky fluff May I remind you about the WHFB Wood Elf book he wrote? And his Daemons of Chaos for WHFB were OP if I'm right. So, he can aactually write good stuff.
Sasori wrote: Now that we know the Authors, let's please not turn this into a Ward Hate/Kelly hate thread.
Can we turn it in to a Kelly Lovefest? Personally, as an Ork player, I can't get enough of Kelly. Balanced, Fluffy, and have longevity to die for.
He wrote an awesome codex there, I personally think it should be held up as a standard for a good army book.
I am very worried, given what others have said about the fantasy ork and goblin book, what will happen if Matthew Ward does to the Orks codex, given that he seems very pro space marines and 'good guys'.
If, based on the rumors, he hates the greenskins so much, why would they have him write the new Ork book? Also, where did the rumor get started that he would write it? It's my only army. If it gets ruined due to some writers bias, I'm more or less out of the game. =(
Thank you to GW for providing my gaming group with about 20 minutes of laughter and eye rolling, followed by a brief stint of "what happened to GW?" which then ended with a nice session of "remember when GW was great"?
Sasori wrote: Now that we know the Authors, let's please not turn this into a Ward Hate/Kelly hate thread.
Can we turn it in to a Kelly Lovefest? Personally, as an Ork player, I can't get enough of Kelly. Balanced, Fluffy, and have longevity to die for.
He wrote an awesome codex there, I personally think it should be held up as a standard for a good army book.
I am very worried, given what others have said about the fantasy ork and goblin book, what will happen if Matthew Ward does to the Orks codex, given that he seems very pro space marines and 'good guys'.
If, based on the rumors, he hates the greenskins so much, why would they have him write the new Ork book? Also, where did the rumor get started that he would write it? It's my only army. If it gets ruined due to some writers bias, I'm more or less out of the game. =(
I very much doubt he "hates" Orks. They might not inspire him like Space Marines, but I think hate is a bit OTT.
I for one welcome our new Daemonic Overlord, Phil Kelly. I actually like the current Daemon codex, it was just a lot of the models were missing/impractical for much of it's existence. If they had just reprinted it with new GD kits and rules tweaks I would have been sold.
buddha wrote: Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)
Well, fantasy O&G players have been fairly vocal here and elsewhere stating their displeasure at the last armybook. It worries me what he could do to my beloved greenies in 40k, especially if he's been so stung with criticism from overgunning in the power armored codices that he's now operating in reverse and toning down hard.
I will just keep my fingers crossed he creates a mix n match sledgehammer of a codex and does us proud. If he is the one writing the book and given that we've just seen this split for the daemons between the two systems, I'm interested to see who will write it.
Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)
As an assault based army this terrifies me for usability....If true
buddha wrote: Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)
This sounds horrible.
Actually, that isn't too bad if you consider they deploy on the table.
Also, maybe take the Ork/Ward discussion to another thread?
It states the words deepstrike and ongoing reserves. It'd be for 40k....and that is pretty bad Pretre. Setting up charges or a game plan only to have a model disapear from the board and be taken out of play for at least two turns (unless they can assault out of reserve). And what happens if it happens the last turn of the game. You lose an expensive unit to a single bad D6 roll....
Hulksmash wrote: It states the words deepstrike and ongoing reserves. It'd be for 40k....and that is pretty bad Pretre. Setting up charges or a game plan only to have a model disapear from the board and be taken out of play for at least two turns (unless they can assault out of reserve). And what happens if it happens the last turn of the game. You lose an expensive unit to a single bad D6 roll....
I guess the question is whether it is worth giving up the 'all deepstrike army with primary/secondary wave' thing in exchange for instability...
Hulksmash wrote: It states the words deepstrike and ongoing reserves. It'd be for 40k....and that is pretty bad Pretre. Setting up charges or a game plan only to have a model disapear from the board and be taken out of play for at least two turns (unless they can assault out of reserve). And what happens if it happens the last turn of the game. You lose an expensive unit to a single bad D6 roll....
Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)
Does it work on units in assaults? What if you can't fit within 3"? Or if there's another unit (say the one you were in assault with) on top of it..
Until we know the specifics, it could be bad/good.
Assuming that's the overview of the rule and the gist unless there are ways of keeping units on the table (i.e. re-roll instability tests) out there this is brutal. Unless there are changes in how the unit acts once it comes back this is brutal.
But if for instance you come back into play and can act normally (i.e. move, shoot, charge) then it's not to insane and could be viewed as units dissapearing into the warp to strike out again from it which is kinda neat.
It's going to depend on the interaction after returning on how this rule works but if there isn't some kind of change to the basic idea then I'd be terrified to run daemons at an event with more than 3 games.
There would definitely need to be an exception to the normal deep strike limitations. However that "within 3" can't be correct. Your enemy could just move a tank or unit on it and screw it over.
It looks like the aesthetic for Daemons is changing quite a bit. Not sure if I like it or not. Tzneetch chariot and the heralds look good, but the khorne thing kind of reminds me of a tricycle for some reason, and the nurgle fliers are... ...well, really odd looking, even for nurgle. Could go either way.
Well now I know to take the old 4th edition book and add in the Chaos boons table and a couple new fugly models which are way more powerful than anything else. That'll save me 50 bucks!
thenoobbomb wrote: Doesn't take away that it is a warmachine with the following idea:
GW staff 1:'we need a warmachine for Khorne Daemons. Khorne... Skulls! Hey, mono-Khornearmies don't have shooty things! Let's make a SKULLCANNON!
Other GW staff: 'Yeah! Huzzah! Let's prize it at $75,-'
Even different GW staff: 'Huzzah! Fill the WD with pictures of them!'
Khorne cares not from where the blood flows, as long as it flows...
I also can't wait for more of the chaos new release images to appear.
It looks like the aesthetic for Daemons is changing quite a bit. Not sure if I like it or not. Tzneetch chariot and the heralds look good, but the khorne thing kind of reminds me of a tricycle for some reason, and the nurgle fliers are... ...well, really odd looking, even for nurgle. Odd and Cool or ridiculous? Could go either way.
If you can act normally after Daemon Instability deepstrikes you back in, it might be reasonable (but still irritating). If not, to hell with Daemons. (Oh, the irony of that statement...)
buddha wrote: Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)
This sounds horrible.
Yeah, I really hope we're missing an important part of that rule, because otherwise..bad news bears....
Great, Kelly has written the 40k Daemon codex. Then we can expect the same issues the CSM codex suffers (like useless units and pt imbalances).
Ward will give the Fantasy Daemon codex (fluff aside) a pretty strong book.
Well now I know to take the old 4th edition book and add in the Chaos boons table and a couple new fugly models which are way more powerful than anything else. That'll save me 50 bucks!
Yeah, cause he didn't change Noise Marines at all. Or Spawn. Or marks to Oblits. Or Bikes. Or basic CSM. Or add cultists. Or create some cool combo's. Yeah, he definitely just copy pasted the previous book and added 3 new units and the boon table....
To long to read, the CSM book isn't 3.5 reborn so a lot of people dislike it. It's a well built codex for the edition it's in.
If the Daemonic Instability thing is real, it could explain the completely stupid seemingly clear-fake rules leaks for the Greater Daemons. The problem is, if both are true, it would basically make Daemons just like now - an absurd, unreliable army with even more absurd units embedded w/in it that are extraordinarily difficult to stop, except when they randomly do really stupid things.
I wonder if Instability is more something like Instinctive Behavior, where it only kicks in during certain circumstances, i.e. being too far from more substantial daemons, or too far from icons, etc.
buddha wrote: Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)
This sounds horrible.
This is just one interpretation of daemonic instability.
Recently, I've seen a Necron army with 3 Spyders. The player rolled three 1's on 3D6 for the generation of Scarabs causing 3 wounds. Rolling 1's is everywhere.
I dunno. Makes me think there are some ridiculous units in there and this is a 'method' to tune it down.
If so, not a good resolution.
Looking at it again, I'm not sure why the leadership would be average on the drones, as I figured it'd be used for Instability. Maybe take a test and then roll a D6...? Speculation?
buddha wrote: Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)
This sounds horrible.
This is just one interpretation of daemonic instability.
Recently, I've seen a Necron army with 3 Spyders. The player rolled three 1's on 3D6 for the generation of Scarabs causing 3 wounds. Rolling 1's is everywhere.
Unless there are ways to mitigate the instability (by allowing assualt from the return DS, or not needing to roll if in range of a certain unit) this is just all bad.
I don't want to trade preferred waves for a 1/6 chance for a key unit to vanish from the table for a turn. What happens if at the end of a game and I have three units and I roll ones for each of their Instability tests? All three units go into Ongoing Reserves? I have no units left on the table so I automatically lose?
I'm not going to declare the sky is falling until I actually have the book in hand, but what I've seen so far has me worried.
Don't look too deeply into that. Just because they're shown fighting something in a WD, doesn't mean they're next or due up.
They could just be showing off the Black Templars using fliers, ala Death from the Skies, along with the new Chaos Daemons. I'd love to see Black Templars this year, though!
Well now I know to take the old 4th edition book and add in the Chaos boons table and a couple new fugly models which are way more powerful than anything else. That'll save me 50 bucks!
pretre wrote: How hard is it to rotate your images before upload? Geeze.
*snip*
I had thought about rotating them, but just thought I'd bring it to peoples attention. Also, isn't uploading images of pre-release GW stuff to dakka against the sites policy now?
pretre wrote: How hard is it to rotate your images before upload? Geeze.
*snip*
I had thought about rotating them, but just thought I'd bring it to peoples attention. Also, isn't uploading images of pre-release GW stuff to dakka against the sites policy now?
I'm hoping the riders can be left off of the flies without it being too obvious. As with that new head they look quite impressive as a stand alone creature.
Experiment 626 wrote: As always with incomplete rules, I'm fairly certain we're missing a key element or five in regards to this new Daemonic Instability.
Agreed, people are just thinking of the bad that "could" happen. Let's take a look at a "good" scenario. A SC or wargear that lets you warp them out on purpose, you know so they don't get shot into oblivion. Granted this would mean they need to have a rule that allows them to assault out of ongoing reserves to be effective. haha. Good things can come, but I also understand your fears. GW doesn't put many "that's really cool" rules in their books.
Kroothawk wrote: Mat Ward writing the Daemons army book? Still wondering why there is a new Warhammer Fantasy edition next year?
The reason is Alessio Cavatore had his hand in it and they are not so happy that he is making warpath and kings of war in the same city GW is in. I bet they are also pissed about how well Bolt Action is doing.
Must be a terrible shock to some people that when you fire talent, it may well be hired by your business rivals. The mindset in the Ivory Tower was probably that he and Priestly et al would go to the nearest cliff and hurl themselves off in despair at being kicked out of GW, well, that or check out operator at Tescos.
Was that ever actually confirmed that he was fired?
I can tell you I have some information on fairly good authority that supports my previous statement... Both gentlemen did not leave of their own volition, or rather, if either of them did, they did so as the result of some 'gentle encouragement'.
Anyone who didn't like the stripped-down CSM, DA, and CD (and arguably Eldar) codicies probably shouldn't be crying a river for Alessio. It's been said that it's not a coincidence that we've seen more complexity added to codicies after he left.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Requiem wrote: All of a sudden the flaming chariot and the nurgle flies look 100x better
It's almost as if a clearer pic can make a difference.
Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)
So, it doesn't say that you can't move the token. That'd be pretty cool if that were the case that you could move the token. The daemons phase out, but are still moving in their same path, and they phase back in further along the path. And they can't get shot at while they're phased out.
Phragonist wrote: So, it doesn't say that you can't move the token. That'd be pretty cool if that were the case that you could move the token. The daemons phase out, but are still moving in their same path, and they phase back in further along the path. And they can't get shot at while they're phased out.
It also doesn't tell you not to swallow the token.
Phragonist wrote: Daemonic instability: Roll d6 for any unit with daemonic instability on the beginning of the turn, on a roll of a 1 they are removed from the table with a token placed where they were positioned before they left, the unit is placed into ongoing reserves and must roll to deepstrike them back onto the table in subsequent turns(only being allowed to land 3" from their token)
So, it doesn't say that you can't move the token. That'd be pretty cool if that were the case that you could move the token. The daemons phase out, but are still moving in their same path, and they phase back in further along the path. And they can't get shot at while they're phased out.
That I like. Oh, sorry Tau, I seem to be heading towards your gunline while you can't shoot at me. Hey, look, my Bloodthirster just phased in behind you!
Phragonist wrote: So, it doesn't say that you can't move the token. That'd be pretty cool if that were the case that you could move the token. The daemons phase out, but are still moving in their same path, and they phase back in further along the path. And they can't get shot at while they're phased out.
It also doesn't tell you not to swallow the token.
Anyone who didn't like the stripped-down CSM, DA, and CD (and arguably Eldar) codicies probably shouldn't be crying a river for Alessio. It's been said that it's not a coincidence that we've seen more complexity added to codicies after he left.
That comment has merit, but I can tell you I cried the entire fething amazon when I compared 6th ed 40k to 5th. Swings and roundabouts...
Phragonist wrote: So, it doesn't say that you can't move the token. That'd be pretty cool if that were the case that you could move the token. The daemons phase out, but are still moving in their same path, and they phase back in further along the path. And they can't get shot at while they're phased out.
It also doesn't tell you not to swallow the token.
Lulz. petre is right, if it doesn't say to do it you can't. Permissive rule set and all. Does this mean if you scatter more than 3" away from the token you essentially mishap? If so this rule is really gruesome.
Modelling opportunities? Copyright Infringement! You can only use GW trademarked Chaos Daemons Daemon Instability Markers in your games if you want to play at GW stores!
Swara wrote: IMO the flies look awesome. He even has a little bitey penis, how can you not love that!
The flies look much better here than the original picture (though the wings would be better in clear plastic), but the riders dont really seem to fit well.
Swara wrote: IMO the flies look awesome. He even has a little bitey penis, how can you not love that!
The flies look much better here than the original picture (though the wings would be better in clear plastic), but the riders dont really seem to fit well.
I was just thinking the same thing. I love the flies, but the PBs on their backs seriously look like they just took the standing figures and squished them on top.
I don't see whay they couldn't have just done a similar pose to what they did with the Bloodcrushers. Those guys look like they are actually riding their mounts.
I really would like to speculate - and hope - that the base leadership is used for Instability rather than taking a 'special' check if Daemons lose combat and take that many unsavable wounds.
So, fail check and then roll D6...? I hope so. Better than previously.
Kroothawk wrote: Mat Ward writing the Daemons army book? Still wondering why there is a new Warhammer Fantasy edition next year?
The reason is Alessio Cavatore had his hand in it and they are not so happy that he is making warpath and kings of war in the same city GW is in. I bet they are also pissed about how well Bolt Action is doing.
Must be a terrible shock to some people that when you fire talent, it may well be hired by your business rivals. The mindset in the Ivory Tower was probably that he and Priestly et al would go to the nearest cliff and hurl themselves off in despair at being kicked out of GW, well, that or check out operator at Tescos.
I find it surprising how people bemoan loss of Cavatore, given how widely condemned the direction he took 40k to, was.
Well the newer pictures look a lot better, there's hope yet. With regard to fearless, I just can't imagine daemons losing the rule. We usually see at least a few army wide rules, and seeing as daemon is already covering the 5++ and fear now, I could definitely see the fearless, daemon of 'x' and daemonic instability being in the front of the book. It would be madness fluff wise if nothing else to have daemons fearing anything.
blood reaper wrote: Leadership 7 and a lack of fearless, plus instability? God dammit Phil Kelly.
Rumour is, were getting a replacement for fearless. Something along the lines of how 5th edition fearless worked, where you don't flee from a combat, but take wound's equal to the amount you lost combat by. Which is fair enough in my opinion, worked for us last edition at least.
The low leadership was never a factor with fearless, but I imagine with psychic powers that can effect by leadership, having every single thing (Except fateweaver lol) at leadership 10 seemed a little OP.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I pray, that we don't get daemon princes as HQ's. I mean, for one thing, it doesn't fit the fluff, with daemon princes being outcast's amongst true daemons. For second, I have 3 heavy support daemon princes, and a great unclean one, and a herald. So, it look's like if they make them HQ's, then I can't use any of them below 2000 points...
IF, however, they made them herald's (Half a HQ slot) I could live with that, I suppose :(
pretre wrote: That's a good point to. For all we know, you get fearless heralds in Wolf Guard-esque elite slots.
Yeah, I'm trying no to freak out, but what I've seen thus far has me worried.
Thats probably for instability purposes.
If its like the old fantasy instability you will take wounds based upon how much you failed your LD by. So if you have a LD of 7, and you lose combat by 2, then roll a 9, you will take 4 wounds.
Hulksmash wrote: The Jetpack rule for Thrust move isn't very clear but from what I gather these are going to be ridiculously fast.
12" Move + d6" Run (rerollable) + 12" Thrust Move means super fast and mostly ignoring terrain (unless you land it in). Not to shabby for redeploying.
I'm hoping that units don't break but instead roll for instability like the beginning of the turn.
My guess is that Daemons are going mass horde. But we'll see.
If Daemon of Nurgle is the same as it is in the CSM book (likely), they'll also be Slow and Purposeful, so they won't be able to run (but somehow are still Fleet for the purposes of charges!).
Evileyes wrote: I pray, that we don't get daemon princes as HQ's. I mean, for one thing, it doesn't fit the fluff, with daemon princes being outcast's amongst true daemons. For second, I have 3 heavy support daemon princes, and a great unclean one, and a herald. So, it look's like if they make them HQ's, then I can't use any of them below 2000 points...
IF, however, they made them herald's (Half a HQ slot) I could live with that, I suppose :(
This. I run Fateweaver and a Bloodthirster as HQs, and from 1-3 DPs of Tzeentch as Heavys, depending on points. One of the things that attracted me to Daemons was being able to run lots of impressive MCs.
I actually like the all DS nature of the army.
If these things change too much, even if the army is still powerful, I'm going to be sad in the pants.
Phase out instability as the rumor now write it sounds really hard on the deamons. Its even worse than demonic assault rules.
Unless you phase out in the enemys turn. That, would be a nice rule, and be a proper substitute for EW, but it would still mess up the unit if you dont get to assault out of reserves.
Edit, and the rules for the plague fly sounds like a lackluster unless you go for a mono Pestilence army and dont have any other options.
Not sure if anyone's mentioned this, but can we now assume that Daemons get transports of some kind?
The Plague Drone pic seems to show them with Very Bulky as a special rule.
Edit: Unless maybe they can start on the table or in normal reserves and be placed inside a CSM transport. Oh...or buildings. But they're not infantry, right?
gorgon wrote: Not sure if anyone's mentioned this, but can we now assume that Daemons get transports of some kind?
The Plague Drone pic seems to show them with Very Bulky as a special rule.
Edit: Unless maybe they can start on the table or in normal reserves and be placed inside a CSM transport. Oh...or buildings. But they're not infantry, right?
Sadly you can't use the transports of allies, even if they're battle brothers
gorgon wrote: Not sure if anyone's mentioned this, but can we now assume that Daemons get transports of some kind?
The Plague Drone pic seems to show them with Very Bulky as a special rule.
Edit: Unless maybe they can start on the table or in normal reserves and be placed inside a CSM transport. Oh...or buildings. But they're not infantry, right?
Sadly you can't use the transports of allies, even if they're battle brothers
I don't think they can enter any transports or buildings anyway if they're cavalry. So what the heck is Very Bulky about? Maybe some kind of warp gate thing?
I had heard that they will be gaining an abundance of jump infantry, so i could see the plague drones counting as that instead of cavalry. Either way, I'm getting the gribbly fethers.
Lake wrote: I had heard that they will be gaining an abundance of jump infantry, so i could see the plague drones counting as that instead of cavalry. Either way, I'm getting the gribbly fethers.
Go back about one page, there's a (crappy) picture of the rules. They are jetpack cavalry.
gorgon wrote: I don't think they can enter any transports or buildings anyway if they're cavalry. So what the heck is Very Bulky about? Maybe some kind of warp gate thing?
Completeness, mostly. If there's some Apocalypse vehicle that can carry Jet Pack Cav, and you want to put the Plague Drones in it, you can do so without having to make up some value for their transport size.
gorgon wrote: I don't think they can enter any transports or buildings anyway if they're cavalry. So what the heck is Very Bulky about? Maybe some kind of warp gate thing?
Completeness, mostly. If there's some Apocalypse vehicle that can carry Jet Pack Cav, and you want to put the Plague Drones in it, you can do so without having to make up some value for their transport size.
You're probably right. I checked the Chaos Spawn entry for CSMs, and they have the Very Bulky rule. And they're Beasts.
I guess that my continued purchasing of GW stuff will depend on how balanced the rules for chaos demons are. I feel that the CSM suffer from balance issues and challenge mechanics when facing marines. If Chaos demons suffer from similar afflicitons i may not buy any of this stuff.
I play nurgle and i must say, I am not fond of either of the models presented here. Once again, rules may dictate my considering them as potential purchases, but the price of the Flies (60$) seems a bit much for three models.
pretre wrote: Actually, that isn't too bad if you consider they deploy on the table.
Having units dissappear at random cinematic isn't that bad? Really?
Oh look, I've lost because I rolled a one for my Plague Bearers holding the objective, but it isn't that bad.
Except, as has been said a couple times, we have no idea about the rest of the rules. For all we know, you can take a locus or banner that prevents instability. Why don't we wait to see the rules before freaking out?
pretre wrote: Actually, that isn't too bad if you consider they deploy on the table.
Having units dissappear at random cinematic isn't that bad? Really?
Oh look, I've lost because I rolled a one for my Plague Bearers holding the objective, but it isn't that bad.
maybe the rule will have an exclusion like while holding an objective or while engaged in combat, you do not roll for that unit or something to that effect.
pretre wrote: Actually, that isn't too bad if you consider they deploy on the table.
Having units dissappear at random cinematic isn't that bad? Really?
Oh look, I've lost because I rolled a one for my Plague Bearers holding the objective, but it isn't that bad.
Except, as has been said a couple times, we have no idea about the rest of the rules. For all we know, you can take a locus or banner that prevents instability. Why don't we wait to see the rules before freaking out?
I'm not freaking out, I'm just responding to you're post.
pretre wrote: Except, as has been said a couple times, we have no idea about the rest of the rules. For all we know, you can take a locus or banner that prevents instability. Why don't we wait to see the rules before freaking out?
Quite besides the point. You said that the rule (knowing only what we know) "isn't that bad". Units vanishing off the table at random cinematic is that bad. It's game-destroying. Whether or not we know the full rule is immaterial to the fact that you think units vanishing "isn't that bad".
pretre wrote: Except, as has been said a couple times, we have no idea about the rest of the rules. For all we know, you can take a locus or banner that prevents instability. Why don't we wait to see the rules before freaking out?
Quite besides the point. You said that the rule (knowing only what we know) "isn't that bad". Units vanishing off the table at random cinematic is that bad. It's game-destroying. Whether or not we know the full rule is immaterial to the fact that you think units vanishing "isn't that bad".
As known right now, it is pretty bad. Again, you are jumping the gun by making an assessment based on insufficient information, however.
pretre wrote: As known right now, it is pretty bad. Again, you are jumping the gun by making an assessment based on insufficient information, however.
I'm making an assumption based upon known information with the obvious caveat that there may be more. And you said it wasn't that bad, and now you're saying it is, so you're back tracking.
pretre wrote: As known right now, it is pretty bad. Again, you are jumping the gun by making an assessment based on insufficient information, however.
I'm making an assumption based upon known information with the obvious caveat that there may be more. And you said it wasn't that bad, and now you're saying it is, so you're back tracking.
Because I have received more information from good daemon players that I respect (Hulk and such) saying that it would be bad. So yes, I backtracked on receiving more information.
Man, I swear I must have peed in your cheerios at some point.
Looking at it a second time it's not the entire force. They talk about using the new skull cannon and tzeentch flame chariot and those aren't listed so it's likely a 2k+ list.
Hulksmash wrote: Looking at it a second time it's not the entire force. They talk about using the new skull cannon and tzeentch flame chariot and those aren't listed so it's likely a 2k+ list.
I'll be honest these new models for the most part look awkward and overly cartoonish. I probably never would have started 40k if the first models I saw looked like this, and I started back in 2nd edition.
I liked most of the Dark Angels and Chaos release (except the Land Speeder 64 and the mawfiend thing) and the heralds don't look bad, but some stuff is starting to look downright goofy - flies, skull cannon, etc.
Basically, a Beast of Nurgle unit that is unengaged can charge in the enemy's assault phase that assaulted ANY friendly unit of your's that is within 12", against that unit. So, you get a free charge in THEIR Assault Phase, and resolve the charge.
This goes for multiple other Beast units too, so if you have 2x within 12", they can both charge.
pretre wrote:@Swara: They have It Will Not Die! And Very Bulky and Poisoned (4+), I believe.
CleverAntics wrote:Basically, a Beast of Nurgle unit that is unengaged can charge in the enemy's assault phase that assaulted ANY friendly unit of your's that is within 12", against that unit. So, you get a free charge in THEIR Assault Phase, and resolve the charge.
This goes for multiple other Beast units too, so if you have 2x within 12", they can both charge.
Thanks guys, my eyes aren't what they used to be.
That seems pretty awesome.. hopefully their point cost is competitive. Though that would mean buying more beasts of nurgle.. time to get some plague toads I think..
Yep! If their point cost is reasonable - awesome that you can still take multiple - they seem 100x better than before. And they're Beasts now! But who DIDN'T see that coming? 4 Wounds is really rocking it too.
Also excited to see we have OPTIONS...can't wait for this.
CleverAntics wrote: Yep! If their point cost is reasonable - awesome that you can still take multiple - they seem 100x better than before. And they're Beasts now! But who DIDN'T see that coming? 4 Wounds is really rocking it too.
Also excited to see we have OPTIONS...can't wait for this.
Me too, i've always wanted to used beasts, but they always suffered from the same problem as spawn.. they were just terrible.
I the cover of the 40K one more. Same thing with Chaos Marines and Chaos warriors the 40K cover was better. The fantasy ones seem a bit faded or something where the 40K ones have more intense colours.
One more thing, PLEASE WILL PEOPLE RESIZE THE IMAGES THEY POST, WE GET BIG SPERAD OUT THREADS AND HAVE WAIT FOR THE DOWNLOAD OTHERWISE.
It looks like Plaguebearers will require a Herald for Feel no Pain from the look of the White Dwarf page. Unless the Plague Bearers have a 4+ save, this is a massive blow to Plaguebearers.
Also note what Matt says about a double 1 wiping out you're entire army....
blood reaper wrote: It looks like Plaguebearers will require a Herald for Feel no Pain from the look of the White Dwarf page. Unless the Plague Bearers have a 4+ save, this is a massive blow to Plaguebearers.
Not if they are only 10pts each. Not that they are just throwing it out there.
We know it's Kelly writing the book. He ripped CSM's down to bare bones and gave options to build them back up. I'd expect something similar here. I would toward now being a deploy normally style of army. Which has positives and negatives.
And as for the chariot I think it's the chariot that's bs5, not the bloodletters.
Not if they are only 10pts each. Not that they are just throwing it out there.
We know it's Kelly writing the book. He ripped CSM's down to bare bones and gave options to build them back up. I'd expect something similar here. I would toward now being a deploy normally style of army. Which has positives and negatives.
And as for the chariot I think it's the chariot that's bs5, not the bloodletters.
Is what I'd assume as well. Nurgle without FnP...? I can't see it being taken away from Nurgle units, that would be completely absurd. I'd like to speculate that the 'Daemon of Nurgle' would have it as universal rule rather than allowing a Herald to grant it; I hope he just improves it.
Under Core, with the other three, Bloodletters are BS5.
Not saying they are but if they are SnP, have plague swords (3+ poison), and just a 5++ at T5 I can see 10-12pts each. And we dont' know what a herald will cost so it's possible it'll be cheaper to include on with a FnP power than a full unit used to be, or equivelant costs.
Just throwing stuff out. I know nothing!!!!! And am still nervous and trying to make myself feel better
I've never played Daemons before, although I decided I wanted an army when I came back to 40k 2 years ago. I decided to start getting models together a few months ago, trusting Harry and Hastings to have the release date right.
Now I've gone from excitement, to utter disappointment, to cautious optimism to excitement again.
Can't wait for the Codex! Still not sure about the flies though..
matphat wrote: I can't wait to see what they have done to Fiends.
And I am dreading to see what they did to my beloved Nurgle Army.
Originally, I was extremely excited. Now i'm really really worried. It allready seems the nurgle army will suffer horribly by the fact daemon princes are HQ's (Meaning you can't take, epidemius, great unclean one, and 3 princes in one force org)
matphat wrote: I can't wait to see what they have done to Fiends.
And I am dreading to see what they did to my beloved Nurgle Army.
Originally, I was extremely excited. Now i'm really really worried. It allready seems the nurgle army will suffer horribly by the fact daemon princes are HQ's (Meaning you can't take, epidemius, great unclean one, and 3 princes in one force org)
I loved the Flying Circus build, and it looks like that's dead.
Leaving aside the unconfirmed changes, just what I've seen from the leaked WD pages has me very worried.
Not sure what makes people feel better about those flies. Flying they look just silly to me, the head was just the tip of the iceberg.
Honestly though, if they just modeled the fly on it's lets with a slightly smaller abdomen and wings extended, I think it would look from decent to very good. But currently it just looks odd due to the flies disproportionate body (in a cartoony way), the rider's awkward stance, and the... um... odd pertuberances from the mouth and rear.
Honestly now i'm very intrigued to hear more about these units. Describing the chariot as the best shooting unit in the army and yet very fragile. This very odd mechanic that makes your units disappear. Honestly I thought that we saw the last of the "Give one, take one" mentality of unit buffs when Necrons lost the phase out rule.
I'm very curious, because if the demonic instability is like what's speculated, then it means that the Deamons are balanced so that several units can still disappear and the army can hold it's ground. Time will tell.
matphat wrote: I can't wait to see what they have done to Fiends.
And I am dreading to see what they did to my beloved Nurgle Army.
Originally, I was extremely excited. Now i'm really really worried. It allready seems the nurgle army will suffer horribly by the fact daemon princes are HQ's (Meaning you can't take, epidemius, great unclean one, and 3 princes in one force org)
I loved the Flying Circus build, and it looks like that's dead.
Leaving aside the unconfirmed changes, just what I've seen from the leaked WD pages has me very worried.
Well, if PBs lost FNP, they better dropped in point cost to about 10 points. Otherwise they will be way overpriced. I wonder how they nerfed Epi. I have the feeling he will only affect Daemons of Nurgle when the codex comes out.
GW is releasing limited edition Chaos Codexes and Army Books this weekend for presale. They will be $90 each USD and there will be 4 of each available, one dedicated to each of the Chaos Gods. Sounds cool if you have the money and a strong preference for a particular Chaos God.
However, an email from GW to resellers says, "will go up for pre-order on the Games Workshop website this weekend. because of the extremely limited nature of these itms we are expecting them to sell out this weekend. Please do not take preorders or prepayments for these products, [customers] best chance to secure one of these items is to visit the website and purchase it themselves."
I can also confirm that this list of items for sale otherwise is what has been posted elsewhere (all USD/CAN) and is for sale for delivery on March 2:
Codex - 49.50/59.50
Army Book - 49.50/59.50
Battle Magic - 11/13
Psychic Cards - 7.50/9
Burning Chariot of Tz - 40/50
Plague Drones (3) - 60/70
Blood Throne - 40/50
Herald of Nurgle - 25/30
Herald of Khorne - 22.25/30
Herald of Slaanesh - 22.25/30
Battalion/Battlefoce - 115/140
Limited Edition Codex - 90/110 (available in Khorne/Tz/Nurgle/Slaanesh)
Limited Edition Army Book - 90/110 (available in Khorne/Tz/Nurgle/Slaanesh)
...Also note what Matt says about a double 1 wiping out you're entire army....
*Sigh*
I'll go first
*Cocks gun towards head*
Well, this fits perfectly with Ward's established Fantasy books pattern; WE's were brokenly OP ---> O&G's were brokenly underpowered to the point of being laughably bad ---> Daemons were so brokenly OP they had to blow-up the game itself and write a new edition!
Looks like it's time for our next 'uber underpowered book to keep things consistant!
.JPG)
As such, sidesteps need be taken. 
.JPG)
