shinros wrote: Well it seems word bearers can take cult troops now. Hmm
I sure hope so. How else would you build army classics like the Sanctified (basically all-Berzerkers Word Bearers) or Prophests of the Blighted Path (Plague Marine-focussed Word Bearers)?
Obliterators look interesting now (and I have some spare terminators sitting around so I might give that a go). Assault 4 makes them pretty good for deepstriking (basically on the worst roll each of the models has the equivalent of a 24" reaper autocannon).
So, using my jump pack warlord and sorcerer I just stick with the Index entry, correct?
shinros wrote: Well it seems word bearers can take cult troops now. Hmm
Wait where was this? I didn't see it in the review/leak. That's actually fairly beneficial, being able to take rubrics or PM in the troop slot would be a big advantage atm, for holding objectives.
shinros wrote: Well it seems word bearers can take cult troops now. Hmm
Wait where was this? I didn't see it in the review/leak. That's actually fairly beneficial, being able to take rubrics or PM in the troop slot would be a big advantage atm, for holding objectives.
If you check the video the cult troops have the option to have a legion keyword attached to them. Considering the point reduction in demon troops as well I am going to have some fun with my word bearer army, honestly I now have a reason to buy the new plague marine kit that is coming out soon I think they will look good in red and with Colchisian runes on their armor plus the new plague marines rock a lot of censers.
shinros wrote: Well it seems word bearers can take cult troops now. Hmm
Wait where was this? I didn't see it in the review/leak. That's actually fairly beneficial, being able to take rubrics or PM in the troop slot would be a big advantage atm, for holding objectives.
If you check the video the cult troops have the option to have a legion keyword attached to them.
Think the Alien wants to know how they become troops instead of elites.
shinros wrote: Well it seems word bearers can take cult troops now. Hmm
Wait where was this? I didn't see it in the review/leak. That's actually fairly beneficial, being able to take rubrics or PM in the troop slot would be a big advantage atm, for holding objectives.
If you check the video the cult troops have the option to have a legion keyword attached to them.
Think the Alien wants to know how they become troops instead of elites.
Oh wrong wording I meant we are allowed to take them before in traitor legions word bearers were not allowed to take cult troops. When I talk about god dedicated units I refer them to cult troops my bad.
Elbows wrote: Obliterators look interesting now (and I have some spare terminators sitting around so I might give that a go). Assault 4 makes them pretty good for deepstriking (basically on the worst roll each of the models has the equivalent of a 24" reaper autocannon).
So, using my jump pack warlord and sorcerer I just stick with the Index entry, correct?
Jump packs are in the codex. Biker characters you'd have to take from the index.
And no Obliterators are not interesting with more random vomit. Those dudes are methodical and selective in how they dispose of their enemies not spit at them and see what happens.
If you meant "more playable" in the sense of "worth their points" then yes they are better of now. Still too expensive, still only toughness 4 which is the biggest joke of them all. And no more power fists in CC. No one needs mutilators. They suck so much it can't be put into words anymore. A grossly overpriced -CC only- unit with movement 4 which needed another unit -oblis- to be nerfed so mutis have their own niche of irrelevance.
Honestly, just get rid of this unit. Wipe its [explicit] existence from this world and all of history and give me my powerful, flexible and rightfully expensive obliterators with fists back!
dan2026 wrote: Odd there are the 4 Daemon troops units in the CSM book.
I wonder what this means for Daemons or what Daemons will be in the Death Guard book.
Not odd at all, thankfully. There was a huge time span where Chaos was simply Chaos. They only split off daemons to make people buy another book.
Too bad due to poor wording you can't include Demons if you want to use any Legion rules benefits. Must be another "oversight". Over all the CSM looks like a large improvement, just certain things like Demons and Chaos Boon are so inane.
For a long time I was certain that the reason why the Daemon Prince sword and axe were so expensive is because they were going to have relic substitute options that would be truly beastly. But from the clips we've seen it doesn't look like that there are any relic weapons for Daemon Princes, as they all replace either power swords, axes, and mauls.
I think that's a real shame, as a Daemon Prince with a beastly unique weapon has always been a staple of my pre-8th lists. I hope that the Prince's sword and axe cost are dramatically reduced, then.
Elbows wrote: Obliterators look interesting now (and I have some spare terminators sitting around so I might give that a go). Assault 4 makes them pretty good for deepstriking (basically on the worst roll each of the models has the equivalent of a 24" reaper autocannon).
So, using my jump pack warlord and sorcerer I just stick with the Index entry, correct?
Jump packs are in the codex. Biker characters you'd have to take from the index.
And no Obliterators are not interesting with more random vomit. Those dudes are methodical and selective in how they dispose of their enemies not spit at them and see what happens.
If you meant "more playable" in the sense of "worth their points" then yes they are better of now. Still too expensive, still only toughness 4 which is the biggest joke of them all. And no more power fists in CC. No one needs mutilators. They suck so much it can't be put into words anymore. A grossly overpriced -CC only- unit with movement 4 which needed another unit -oblis- to be nerfed so mutis have their own niche of irrelevance.
Honestly, just get rid of this unit. Wipe its [explicit] existence from this world and all of history and give me my powerful, flexible and rightfully expensive obliterators with fists back!
Methodical and selective? You only used like 3 or 4 of the weapon profiles. Quit pretending the old Obliterators were all that.
dan2026 wrote: Odd there are the 4 Daemon troops units in the CSM book.
I wonder what this means for Daemons or what Daemons will be in the Death Guard book.
Not odd at all, thankfully. There was a huge time span where Chaos was simply Chaos. They only split off daemons to make people buy another book.
Too bad due to poor wording you can't include Demons if you want to use any Legion rules benefits. Must be another "oversight". Over all the CSM looks like a large improvement, just certain things like Demons and Chaos Boon are so inane.
That's not entirely true. You cannot include Daemons in a Detachment if you want to use a legion trait. You can certainly have another detachment that includes the Daemons, and a different detachment for your legion.
For example, you could have a Black Legion Vanguard Battalion detachment consisting of CSMs, and a World Eaters Battalion Detachment consisting of Khorne Berzerkers, and a Daemons Battalion detachment consisting of Horrors. This army would offer the same number of command points as a Brigade detachment and everyone would enjoy their special rules.
I imagine when the Daemons Codex comes out, one might want to use the rules from that book to replace the ones in this one.
dan2026 wrote: Odd there are the 4 Daemon troops units in the CSM book.
I wonder what this means for Daemons or what Daemons will be in the Death Guard book.
Not odd at all, thankfully. There was a huge time span where Chaos was simply Chaos. They only split off daemons to make people buy another book.
Too bad due to poor wording you can't include Demons if you want to use any Legion rules benefits. Must be another "oversight". Over all the CSM looks like a large improvement, just certain things like Demons and Chaos Boon are so inane.
That's not entirely true. You cannot include Daemons in a Detachment if you want to use a legion trait. You can certainly have another detachment that includes the Daemons, and a different detachment for your legion.
For example, you could have a Black Legion Vanguard Battalion detachment consisting of CSMs, and a World Eaters Battalion Detachment consisting of Khorne Berzerkers, and a Daemons Battalion detachment consisting of Horrors. This army would offer the same number of command points as a Brigade detachment and everyone would enjoy their special rules.
I imagine when the Daemons Codex comes out, one might want to use the rules from that book to replace the ones in this one.
Why would you do that? Just use the actual demon list from the Index. The point is that you'd think since they put them in CSM you'd be able to USE them in a detachment WITH CSM.
Another incredibly dumb "oversight" is how you have to pay points to become a demon prince via chaos boon. So if you buy a chaos lord, and he turns into a demon prince you have to pay for BOTH models. Nevermind the fact that no one is going to reserve points just on the chance that you'll become a demon prince on a 12 on 2d6. So stupid and poorly worded.
Another incredibly dumb "oversight" is how you have to pay points to become a demon prince via chaos boon. So if you buy a chaos lord, and he turns into a demon prince you have to pay for BOTH models. Nevermind the fact that no one is going to reserve points just on the chance that you'll become a demon prince on a 12 on 2d6. So stupid and poorly worded.
I don't think this is an option intended primarily for tournament play. Character becomes Daemon Prince sounds like a classic have-fun story game among friends, not a matched play thing.
Another incredibly dumb "oversight" is how you have to pay points to become a demon prince via chaos boon. So if you buy a chaos lord, and he turns into a demon prince you have to pay for BOTH models. Nevermind the fact that no one is going to reserve points just on the chance that you'll become a demon prince on a 12 on 2d6. So stupid and poorly worded.
I don't think this is an option intended primarily for tournament play. Character becomes Daemon Prince sounds like a classic have-fun story game among friends, not a matched play thing.
Oh okay, I must have missed that line in the Stratagem. "Open Play Only". Instead of correctly writing a rule to make it playable for everyone.
I think that somehow GW made a Chaos codex that is WORSE than the 6e one. I have no idea how. On top of that, none of our ancient model line is getting updated. This might actually be the worst release for chaos space marines ever. "Chaos are the super big bad guys promised they scary woooooh spoooooky marines with spiiiiiiiiiiikes". Good thing most chaos players are jaded to GW propoganda at this point. Here's to another edition at the bottom of the dumpster fire gents. *titanic violin quartet*
Oh okay, I must have missed that line in the Stratagem. "Open Play Only". Instead of correctly writing a rule to make it playable for everyone.
It is playable by everyone, even if it is not super-competitive in tournament play.
What would be the point of a point-based matched play variant if it doesn't put careful limits on some of the more wacky options that are fun in scenarios, etc.. that could very easily derail competitive games or tightly organised events?
If every crazy thing would work as easily in matched play as it does in open play, you wouldn't need matched play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
StarHunter25 wrote: On top of that, none of our ancient model line is getting updated.
Funny. I think I read somewhere those super-old Plague Marines were getting an upgrade this year.
Oh okay, I must have missed that line in the Stratagem. "Open Play Only". Instead of correctly writing a rule to make it playable for everyone.
It is playable by everyone, even if it is not super-competitive in tournament play.
What would be the point of a point-based matched play variant if it doesn't put careful limits on some of the more wacky options that are fun in scenarios, etc.. that could very easily derail competitive games or tightly organised events?
If every crazy thing would work as easily in matched play as it does in open play, you wouldn't need matched play.
You're ALREADY paying for the character that gets killed. I'm not sure you understand what competitive really means, with that statement. It is vastly more competitive to pay for a Lord AND a Demon prince to guarantee you have them both instead of relying on a 12 on a 2d6 that costs 1 CP? Thus using this stratagem IS trying to be fun, but if you decide to play Matched you're just punished because of bad writing.
You're ALREADY paying for the character that gets killed.
Then don't use that Strategem.
If the game is competitive 2000 pts. vs. 2000 pts., and the armies are balanced at those points, a single "free" point would in theory throw of the balance and void the result of the game in a strictly sportsman/tournament sense.
Yeah, why require GW to write a rule that works for each play style. "Just don't use it". OR they could have said "Re-roll results of 2 and 12 if playing in Matched Play" and viola it's useful for everyone.
But yeah, "Just don't use it" is a way better defense.
Kirasu wrote: Yeah, why require GW to write a rule that works for each play style. "Just don't use it". OR they could have said "Re-roll results of 2 and 12 if playing in Matched Play" and viola it's useful for everyone.
But yeah, "Just don't use it" is a way better defense.
There are lots of rules you don't use in any given game. If you play points, you're not using power level. If you're using power level, you're not using points. If you're playing Black Legion, you're not using Night Lords strategems. If you're using a finely tuned tournament-winning list, you'll not use the possibly-turn-into-a-Daemon-Prince strategem.
dan2026 wrote: Odd there are the 4 Daemon troops units in the CSM book.
I wonder what this means for Daemons or what Daemons will be in the Death Guard book.
Not odd at all, thankfully. There was a huge time span where Chaos was simply Chaos. They only split off daemons to make people buy another book.
Too bad due to poor wording you can't include Demons if you want to use any Legion rules benefits. Must be another "oversight". Over all the CSM looks like a large improvement, just certain things like Demons and Chaos Boon are so inane.
That's not entirely true. You cannot include Daemons in a Detachment if you want to use a legion trait. You can certainly have another detachment that includes the Daemons, and a different detachment for your legion.
For example, you could have a Black Legion Vanguard Battalion detachment consisting of CSMs, and a World Eaters Battalion Detachment consisting of Khorne Berzerkers, and a Daemons Battalion detachment consisting of Horrors. This army would offer the same number of command points as a Brigade detachment and everyone would enjoy their special rules.
I imagine when the Daemons Codex comes out, one might want to use the rules from that book to replace the ones in this one.
Why would you do that? Just use the actual demon list from the Index. The point is that you'd think since they put them in CSM you'd be able to USE them in a detachment WITH CSM.
Another incredibly dumb "oversight" is how you have to pay points to become a demon prince via chaos boon. So if you buy a chaos lord, and he turns into a demon prince you have to pay for BOTH models. Nevermind the fact that no one is going to reserve points just on the chance that you'll become a demon prince on a 12 on 2d6. So stupid and poorly worded.
There is nothing preventing someone from using these Daemon profiles in a detachment with CSM. Word Bearers have a bonus to summoning that makes that easier. I think these profiles are in this book as a matter of completeness - no one wants to lug around the Index and the Codex.
With regards to the Daemon Prince, I know in matched play one must pay for every model that will be added to the army, or that will replace a unit that has been destroyed. The Chaos Boon chart specifically says that the replacement models do not cost reinforcement points. So how would one 'pay' for both models?
Virtually every csm codex after 3.5 is a missed opportunity. It's as if they have no ideas for the main protagonist of the setting.
I disagree. Chaos players overall on dakka are consistently the most half glass empty group despite consistently getting new models and updates in 6th/7th. There are big upsides (Legion rules finally after over a decade! not sure if this is new but in 5th they got generic demons and now have proper cult specific demons!) but a slew of new model releases isn't one of them. That said... there are at least new plague marine models as well as more new plague stuff coming soon that we know of.
If you don't play the right cult most of your models are old. The rules in 8th seem to be lesser copys of SM in many cases and CSM were old as dirt codexs that got stuff at the tail end of 7th. Many chaos miss the days of being a top army
Anyone else notice that the aspiring sorc for rubrics no longer has a cost listed? If rubrics start paying the same for the sorc as every other member of the squad, it'd be a 15 point discount.
Between this and the point breaks on noise and plague marine (plus new options for the latter) things are looking fairly good for cult units overall.
Did GW even need to tell us that Fabulous Bill wanted to do experimentation with primaris marines?
In other new, Urien Rakarth of the prophets of Flesh coven would ALSO like to express his interest in primaris subjects for his own set of experiments... lol
Yes. Quite soon, even.
Thousand Sons are likely to get one eventually, too.
Ooo goody. I think I'll hold off then. I like the idea of a Nurgle footslogging horde army with plague marines, hordes of pox walkers, Forgeworld Renegade Cultists and a handful of tanks. Are footslogging Nurgle armies fun in the new edition with their resilience?
Yes. Quite soon, even.
Thousand Sons are likely to get one eventually, too.
I'd be willing to say that TS are one of the 10 being rushed out before the end of the year. No models, simple background reprint of the stuff that came out last year, minor update on their doings during the last century.
Aint even mad about Fabius, like good excuse to make new upscaled normal CSM, wasn't there a retailer that said the standard CSM were getting updated?
Besides who can blame him, if your job is to make stuff, if you see new stuff not like your old stuff, you're gonna wanna steal that stuff to make new stuff!
Yes. Quite soon, even.
Thousand Sons are likely to get one eventually, too.
Ooo goody. I think I'll hold off then. I like the idea of a Nurgle footslogging horde army with plague marines, hordes of pox walkers, Forgeworld Renegade Cultists and a handful of tanks. Are footslogging Nurgle armies fun in the new edition with their resilience?
I've had mixed results, but my overall opinion is, they still aren't quite resilient enough to foot slog, which is unfortunate as their fluff is all about marching armies of marines behind hordes of pox walkers. But maybe with the points reductions, we may also see some changes in the Pox Walker points costs, to be able to take more of them. The more of them we can have the better, as they generally grab attention away from the marines. It's also a lot more viable to footslog them using the Blightbringer, as he acts (to a certain extent) like a transport for everyone within an aura.
We may also get some nifty stratagems, psykic powers and/or abilities that revolve around helping them move up the table with some more defence or speed when our full codex drops
unmercifulconker wrote: Aint even mad about Fabius, like good excuse to make new upscaled normal CSM, wasn't there a retailer that said the standard CSM were getting updated?
Besides who can blame him, if your job is to make stuff, if you see new stuff not like your old stuff, you're gonna wanna steal that stuff to make new stuff!
Could that random double eagle skull icon that appeared on WarCom yesterday maybe relate to traitor primaris? Ones that Bile has managed to create
unmercifulconker wrote: Aint even mad about Fabius, like good excuse to make new upscaled normal CSM, wasn't there a retailer that said the standard CSM were getting updated?
Besides who can blame him, if your job is to make stuff, if you see new stuff not like your old stuff, you're gonna wanna steal that stuff to make new stuff!
Could that random double eagle skull icon that appeared on WarCom yesterday maybe relate to traitor primaris? Ones that Bile has managed to create
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'd still rather have had Plague Marines stay at the same cost and get a Pistol and extra attack. Still mildly butthurt about it.
I think the current version is stronger. You can mix melee with ranged options to give something of comparable power (two flails ends up at about the same spot as 2 melee attacks on everyone) while dedicated ranged/melee are still an option,, for people wanting to specialize or run barebones objective grabbers (eventually with DG codex).
The book is a pretty good primer for the future. The book has a few holes, but not enough for me to get pissy about. As to Bile, how many models are out for him, or are they just going for that model, that came out around 3d-4th edition?
Is he in plastic, yet? I am really liking the deviousness coming out of there. A few chaos Primaris might be in order, when I put a couple of fly heads and zombie bits on them.....
Deathguard bound and loving papa nurgles love!!!
I also can't wait to defile that fancy new dread. I'm going to have my way with it and let it ooze Nurgles favor as I add in the resin drippings and the Nurglings to taste!
Take that, you nancy boy Primaris, Nurgles coming for you!!!
buddha wrote: Any word on if marks do anything other than add keywords?
That's all they do BUT some powers need the keywords
Yeah, I have understood that you cannot target Nurgle Psychic powers to Slaanesh/Khorne/Tzeentch units. Although now that I think of this, this is just my assumption, although quite sensible fluffwise.
EDIT: Yes, it is limited in Chaos deity spells that it's only for units of their dedication.
I think chaos primaris are unlikely to be happening soon, that's likely something that'll come after WE/EC get standalone armies, which itself is probably a couple years away judging by their inclusion.
techsoldaten wrote: I think these profiles are in this book as a matter of completeness - no one wants to lug around the Index and the Codex.
Do you have....
A Chaos Lord on a Bike
A Chaos Sorcerer on a Bike
A Chaos Lord on a Palanquin
A Chaos Sorcerer on Palanquin
A Chaos Sorcerer on a Disc
A Chaos Lord on a Juggernaut
or
A Chaos Lord/Sorcerer on a Steed of Slaanesh?
If so, guess what?
You're lugging around the Index anyway to use those
SilverAlien wrote: I think chaos primaris are unlikely to be happening soon, that's likely something that'll come after WE/EC get standalone armies, which itself is probably a couple years away judging by their inclusion.
Primaris Marines had to have been in development for quite some time. I think we would have seen GW up the scale of the Thousand Sons and Death Guard if there were plans for large scale roll out. Instead we'll probably see a specific unit or 2 based off primaris. Something like a redone Obliterator/Mutilator kit which is needed or a redone Possessed Kit that is needed.
buddha wrote: Any word on if marks do anything other than add keywords?
yeah, pretty much. It makes more stratagems applicable and for the 3 magic gods, each is a spell they can cast. WH-Community previewed them all already, I believe.
SilverAlien wrote: I think chaos primaris are unlikely to be happening soon, that's likely something that'll come after WE/EC get standalone armies, which itself is probably a couple years away judging by their inclusion.
Primaris Marines had to have been in development for quite some time. I think we would have seen GW up the scale of the Thousand Sons and Death Guard if there were plans for large scale roll out. Instead we'll probably see a specific unit or 2 based off primaris. Something like a redone Obliterator/Mutilator kit which is needed or a redone Possessed Kit that is needed.
CSM the size of the DV chosen would probably be enough. They look bulky compared to the old sculpts.
Or they could use the Gal Vorbak / Blade Slaves size and those are suppossed to have started as normal marines anyway, before they mutated.
Galas wrote: So Brimstones are up in price a 50%. I don't know if thats enough but... is something.
Does this help?
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/05/legion-focus-word-bearers-aug-5gw-homepage-post-2/ wrote:Horrors of all kinds have been very popular in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000, and it’s hard to deny the appeal of a pack of malevolent, sentient magic. All the same, we’ve made some tweaks to Horrors to encourage a wider diversity of army builds. Firstly, you’ll need a full unit of 10 or more Pink Horrors to do more than a single Wound when you cast Smite. Secondly, Pink Horrors cost fewer points and Brimstone Horrors cost more. All other lesser Daemons have dropped in points, too, meaning whatever you’re, summoning you’ll get more for your reinforcement points.
buddha wrote: Any word on if marks do anything other than add keywords?
Honestly it looks like someone overlooked writing about them. right now, all they are is a footnote.
Nope. They control interactions.
I think people misunderstand what keywords are for: they're a reference tag or pointer for other rules.
GW's problem is
a) they didn't bother to explain the design intent behind them (to be honest, I don't think they really understand them, just that they're a recently popular way of handling rules)
a1) this really shines through because they don't have types or subtypes: faction, subfaction, marks, and unit types are all under keywords as if they were the same thing, which lead to having to clarify that stormtroopers and ogryn auxiliary aren't actually regiments, which would have been clear if the keywords had types. [Much like with programming variables, integers and decimals aren't the same thing and shouldn't be used interchangeably). Which was also why the <Stupid Exploit> chapter/regiment/forge world had to be quashed, because they didn't bother to explain or assign types the keywords.
b) there are far too many (and they're left open to be effectively infinite- every planet in the galaxy could have a different guard regiment, for example)
c) simultaneously with the too many keywords, there aren't many rules that interact with them. This isn't necessarily a problem, but the player base is accustomed to Marks being really significant and paint scheme... not so much. That they just seem to be targets for a few spells and stratagems lessens their significance immensely. Hence why GW is recommending silly things like Iron Warrior Tzeentch Terminators and Sorcerers, and Slaaneshi Havocs (to use the double shoot stratagem) to prop up the shoddy Chapter Tactics of the non-god legions. The fluff is out the window in favor of scrounging up the few buffs that even exist.
unmercifulconker wrote: Aint even mad about Fabius, like good excuse to make new upscaled normal CSM, wasn't there a retailer that said the standard CSM were getting updated?
Besides who can blame him, if your job is to make stuff, if you see new stuff not like your old stuff, you're gonna wanna steal that stuff to make new stuff!
Could that random double eagle skull icon that appeared on WarCom yesterday maybe relate to traitor primaris? Ones that Bile has managed to create
Link?
Can't find it as it's not on the community site anymore
unmercifulconker wrote: Aint even mad about Fabius, like good excuse to make new upscaled normal CSM, wasn't there a retailer that said the standard CSM were getting updated?
Besides who can blame him, if your job is to make stuff, if you see new stuff not like your old stuff, you're gonna wanna steal that stuff to make new stuff!
Could that random double eagle skull icon that appeared on WarCom yesterday maybe relate to traitor primaris? Ones that Bile has managed to create
Link?
Can't find it as it's not on the community site anymore
unmercifulconker wrote: Aint even mad about Fabius, like good excuse to make new upscaled normal CSM, wasn't there a retailer that said the standard CSM were getting updated?
Besides who can blame him, if your job is to make stuff, if you see new stuff not like your old stuff, you're gonna wanna steal that stuff to make new stuff!
Could that random double eagle skull icon that appeared on WarCom yesterday maybe relate to traitor primaris? Ones that Bile has managed to create
Link?
Can't find it as it's not on the community site anymore
I haven't specifically seen a rule allowing WE/EC to do so, so that may be out. Could be an oversight though. Could also be tucked away somewhere that hasn't been shown.
Galas wrote: So Brimstones are up in price a 50%. I don't know if thats enough but... is something.
Does this help?
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/05/legion-focus-word-bearers-aug-5gw-homepage-post-2/ wrote:Horrors of all kinds have been very popular in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000, and it’s hard to deny the appeal of a pack of malevolent, sentient magic. All the same, we’ve made some tweaks to Horrors to encourage a wider diversity of army builds. Firstly, you’ll need a full unit of 10 or more Pink Horrors to do more than a single Wound when you cast Smite. Secondly, Pink Horrors cost fewer points and Brimstone Horrors cost more. All other lesser Daemons have dropped in points, too, meaning whatever you’re, summoning you’ll get more for your reinforcement points.
Should help a little! Have to hope they'll be fixing the other stuff like Conscripts and apparently Scions. Were Poxwalkers in the book? Did they change yet?
SilverAlien wrote: I haven't specifically seen a rule allowing WE/EC to do so, so that may be out. Could be an oversight though. Could also be tucked away somewhere that hasn't been shown.
This.
Until we can properly see the full book it may be one of those rules that's tucked away in a corner.
I do wonder however if you can use the Index cult troops otherwise - because losing Berserker troops is basically going to take anyone with a KDK army from 7th and slap them in the face.
SilverAlien wrote: I haven't specifically seen a rule allowing WE/EC to do so, so that may be out. Could be an oversight though. Could also be tucked away somewhere that hasn't been shown.
This.
Until we can properly see the full book it may be one of those rules that's tucked away in a corner.
I do wonder however if you can use the Index cult troops otherwise - because losing Berserker troops is basically going to take anyone with a KDK army from 7th and slap them in the face.
I would agree with your point more if I had ever seen an actual KDK army with berserkers let alone troops in it.
unmercifulconker wrote: Aint even mad about Fabius, like good excuse to make new upscaled normal CSM, wasn't there a retailer that said the standard CSM were getting updated?
Besides who can blame him, if your job is to make stuff, if you see new stuff not like your old stuff, you're gonna wanna steal that stuff to make new stuff!
Could that random double eagle skull icon that appeared on WarCom yesterday maybe relate to traitor primaris? Ones that Bile has managed to create
While I don't think the skull links to anything chaos, it could be possible, as the icon is a bastardization of the Aquila, much like the chaos primaris would be to the holy and pure primaris.
Also someone pointed out on B&C and it too caught my eye a while ago but thought I was just seeing things. To anyone else, do the images of the chaos marines look 'taller' to anyone?
To me it's the legs, they look slightly taller. I didn't think anything of it first but now it would make sense if (rightfully so) all chaos marines are going to be upscaled.
While I don't think the skull links to anything chaos, it could be possible, as the icon is a bastardization of the Aquila, much like the chaos primaris would be to the holy and pure primaris.
Also someone pointed out on B&C and it too caught my eye a while ago but thought I was just seeing things. To anyone else, do the images of the chaos marines look 'taller' to anyone?
To me it's the legs, they look slightly taller. I didn't think anything of it first but now it would make sense if (rightfully so) all chaos marines are going to be upscaled.
I think it's just updating to normal sized marines since our previous codeces have always depicted our old stubby marines from the older editions.
Jensvdb wrote: has anyone seen the points for the new Plaguemarines weapons?
which one is new? There are 17 total weapon profiles on this datasheet
The melee ones like flail, mace and axe i found the points for the range weapons already
plague weapons re-roll rolls of 1 to WOUND (ranged and melee). Fighting with two melee gives extra attack, and you can mix between plagueknife, bubonic axe and mace of contagion. Axe and flail increase strength, have AP -2. Flail is awesome as 2 dg becomes lethal when you attack. Roll D3 before using flail for number of attacks. Casualties DO rip through enemies like mortal wounds do (but these aren't MW). Great cleaver -1 to hit (get that Prescience off ) but Str x2, AP -3, D6dmg.
Page 134 in the codex. working on my review today for this and Grey Knights.
That warlord trait will need a FAQ probably? The way it is worded it almost implies that if you first warlord has this trait, he dies, and his replacement takes a different warlord trait, you'd still only get the "slay the warlord" point if every character was dead, not just the new warlord.
I assume it doesn't work like that because the warlord trait only applies when a model with it is on the field, but it is still very oddly worded.
That warlord trait will need a FAQ probably? The way it is worded it almost implies that if you first warlord has this trait, he dies, and his replacement takes a different warlord trait, you'd still only get the "slay the warlord" point if every character was dead, not just the new warlord.
I assume it doesn't work like that because the warlord trait only applies when a model with it is on the field, but it is still very oddly worded.
Probably not. We've only seen the blurb for the rules. not the table available thats mentioned in it. could be pretty straightforward.
Select ALWL trait & generate on table not shown > WL get killed > Select new trait from table and AL legion trait & Warlord > repeat if dies. enemy only gets slay the warlord once all char's are killed.
As for not being on the table, you cant kill the warlord off the table unless playing matched play using reserves and he's left in reserve / Blowing up his transport. when he's killed the trait is activated at least. thats how i see it being interpreted.
Wow. Does that -1 to hit stack with other modifiers? -2 if the unit is in cover? -3 if that Alpha Legion unit in cover has the Daemon keyword with the Mark of Tzeentch and The Changelling nearby? (Possesed, Obliterators, Warptalons...)
Oh boy, that'd be cool. I would only need to wash my blue CSM with Coelia Greenshade to turn them AL.
ochobits wrote: Wow. Does that -1 to hit stack with other modifiers? -2 if the unit is in cover? -3 if that Alpha Legion unit in cover has the Daemon keyword with the Mark of Tzeentch and The Changelling nearby? (Possesed, Obliterators, Warptalons...)
Oh boy, that'd be cool. I would only need to wash my blue CSM with Coelia Greenshade to turn them AL.
-1 to hit while in cover? Don't you mean +1 to armour saves?
Yeah, its +1 to armor save when in cover.
I don't know why people keep thinking its a hit modifier. It's clearly stated in the rules for cover that it gives a bonus to armor.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, its +1 to armor save when in cover.
I don't know why people keep thinking its a hit modifier. It's clearly stated in the rules for cover that it gives a bonus to armor.
Because it would make more sense to have it a hit modifier since cover blocking a shot or a stealth system hiding your position successfully means you're not actually hit... not that your actual armor is suddenly more effective at absorbing bullets.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, its +1 to armor save when in cover. I don't know why people keep thinking its a hit modifier. It's clearly stated in the rules for cover that it gives a bonus to armor.
Because it would make more sense to have it a hit modifier since cover blocking a shot or a stealth system hiding your position successfully means you're not actually hit... not that your actual armor is suddenly more effective at absorbing bullets.
And yet its clearly stated in the rules what it does. It doesn't matter if it seems odd, what matters is that a lot of people are getting what is clearly defined wrong. It makes a lot more sense if armor is taken before wounding rolls, but no one makes that error.
Also, one can say that cover improving armor does make sense as now the shot has to bypass cover and armor. Kinetic energy is lost from penetrating the cover, thus allowing the armor to shrug off the shot. There, there's your reason.
It's good this way. Improving armor on space marines doesn't matter all that much while the other factions benefit greatly unless getting shot by heavy weapons. Whereas a -1 to hit would barely affect space marine shooters and greatly benefit them against factions that have horrible shooting already. Hordes depend on that blob shooting to get a few wounds in and if you're negating half their shots just by standing next to a tree... that's lame.
Armor can POTENTIALLY negate half your shots with the buff going from 3+ to 2+ but this won't always happen nor will it impact heavy weapons as much as the hit modifier would. They already get so few shots that making them fail to hit and deny their super strength a chance to wound is horrible.
It's not the first or last unrealistic or non-common sense thing in this edition. But it works!
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, its +1 to armor save when in cover.
I don't know why people keep thinking its a hit modifier. It's clearly stated in the rules for cover that it gives a bonus to armor.
Because it would make more sense to have it a hit modifier since cover blocking a shot or a stealth system hiding your position successfully means you're not actually hit... not that your actual armor is suddenly more effective at absorbing bullets.
And yet its clearly stated in the rules what it does. It doesn't matter if it seems odd, what matters is that a lot of people are getting what is clearly defined wrong.
You complained about others making the mistake and asked why and I answered your question. I'm not arguing that they're getting the rule wrong but rather explaining why they are. No need to get defensive.
Arkaine wrote: It's good this way. Improving armor on space marines doesn't matter all that much while the other factions benefit greatly!
Out of cover both a 5 man marine squad and a 10 man guard squad would expect it to take 15 wounds before saves to kill them. Inside cover, space marines take 30 while the guard squad takes 20. That's a larger relative benefit to SMs, or any other 3+ army. You are correct that a - hit modifier matters less to SM than other armies though.
The question is still valid though... does the -1 to hit for AL stack with the -1 to hit from The Changeling?
Aye it does, now you only have to work out the problem of the lack of range on Heretic Astartes Daemon units.
Although... Now that posessed have 2W... You could take a 20 man unit of possessed, make them AL for -1 to hit, take the Changeling for -2 to hit, have a Herald for S6, cast Boon of change for S7, T5, A1+d3 and even cast the new Tzeentch power for a 4++. Lot of points but it'd be a tough nut to crack...
buddha wrote: Any word on if marks do anything other than add keywords?
Honestly it looks like someone overlooked writing about them. right now, all they are is a footnote.
Nope. They control interactions.
I think people misunderstand what keywords are for: they're a reference tag or pointer for other rules.
GW's problem is
a) they didn't bother to explain the design intent behind them (to be honest, I don't think they really understand them, just that they're a recently popular way of handling rules)
a1) this really shines through because they don't have types or subtypes: faction, subfaction, marks, and unit types are all under keywords as if they were the same thing, which lead to having to clarify that stormtroopers and ogryn auxiliary aren't actually regiments, which would have been clear if the keywords had types. [Much like with programming variables, integers and decimals aren't the same thing and shouldn't be used interchangeably). Which was also why the <Stupid Exploit> chapter/regiment/forge world had to be quashed, because they didn't bother to explain or assign types the keywords.
b) there are far too many (and they're left open to be effectively infinite- every planet in the galaxy could have a different guard regiment, for example)
c) simultaneously with the too many keywords, there aren't many rules that interact with them. This isn't necessarily a problem, but the player base is accustomed to Marks being really significant and paint scheme... not so much. That they just seem to be targets for a few spells and stratagems lessens their significance immensely. Hence why GW is recommending silly things like Iron Warrior Tzeentch Terminators and Sorcerers, and Slaaneshi Havocs (to use the double shoot stratagem) to prop up the shoddy Chapter Tactics of the non-god legions. The fluff is out the window in favor of scrounging up the few buffs that even exist.
That is an interesting take on it, and I never really thought of them in that way before.
You think that GW is going to readdress these as they continue on the single chapter books?
mrhappyface wrote: Aye it does, now you only have to work out the problem of the lack of range on Heretic Astartes Daemon units.
Although... Now that posessed have 2W... You could take a 20 man unit of possessed, make them AL for -1 to hit, take the Changeling for -2 to hit, have a Herald for S6, cast Boon of change for S7, T5, A1+d3 and even cast the new Tzeentch power for a 4++. Lot of points but it'd be a tough nut to crack...
That was exactly my idea, but with a 10 man unit. The Changelling, a Herald on Disc and the Possesed advancing every turn, maybe with a Sorcerer on Disc casting warptime on them as well. I guess I'd only use the new Tzeentch power depending on the enemy they are charging. The group will be completed with 3 flamers and a Exalted flamer. If I can get them on the other side of the table on Turn 2 I'd be a happy Chaos player.
The question is still valid though... does the -1 to hit for AL stack with the -1 to hit from The Changeling?
Aye it does, now you only have to work out the problem of the lack of range on Heretic Astartes Daemon units.
Although... Now that posessed have 2W... You could take a 20 man unit of possessed, make them AL for -1 to hit, take the Changeling for -2 to hit, have a Herald for S6, cast Boon of change for S7, T5, A1+d3 and even cast the new Tzeentch power for a 4++. Lot of points but it'd be a tough nut to crack...
I seen some places rule that changeling dose not work for CSM daemons as the daemon keyword is in the wrong place
I seen some places rule that changeling dose not work for CSM daemons as the daemon keyword is in the wrong place
Interesting... but in the latest FAQ it was stated that CSM daemons benefit from Heralds' auras, I don't see why it should be different with The Changelling.
Obliterators! With 12 shots in a unit now they seem to be pretty good, and with Alpha Legion+Changeling they should be very difficult to shift.
If only they had cool models! I hav some spares termies, I could throw a ton of Green Stuff on them and try to turn them into Obliterators and see how they go. They could Deep Strike 13" away the enemy when the rest of the group gets there.
buddha wrote: Any word on if marks do anything other than add keywords?
Honestly it looks like someone overlooked writing about them. right now, all they are is a footnote.
Nope. They control interactions.
I think people misunderstand what keywords are for: they're a reference tag or pointer for other rules.
GW's problem is
a) they didn't bother to explain the design intent behind them (to be honest, I don't think they really understand them, just that they're a recently popular way of handling rules)
a1) this really shines through because they don't have types or subtypes: faction, subfaction, marks, and unit types are all under keywords as if they were the same thing, which lead to having to clarify that stormtroopers and ogryn auxiliary aren't actually regiments, which would have been clear if the keywords had types. [Much like with programming variables, integers and decimals aren't the same thing and shouldn't be used interchangeably). Which was also why the <Stupid Exploit> chapter/regiment/forge world had to be quashed, because they didn't bother to explain or assign types the keywords.
b) there are far too many (and they're left open to be effectively infinite- every planet in the galaxy could have a different guard regiment, for example)
c) simultaneously with the too many keywords, there aren't many rules that interact with them. This isn't necessarily a problem, but the player base is accustomed to Marks being really significant and paint scheme... not so much. That they just seem to be targets for a few spells and stratagems lessens their significance immensely. Hence why GW is recommending silly things like Iron Warrior Tzeentch Terminators and Sorcerers, and Slaaneshi Havocs (to use the double shoot stratagem) to prop up the shoddy Chapter Tactics of the non-god legions. The fluff is out the window in favor of scrounging up the few buffs that even exist.
That is an interesting take on it, and I never really thought of them in that way before.
You think that GW is going to readdress these as they continue on the single chapter books?
Nope. They actually can't. Changing keywords at this stage would be like changing the dice to 4 or 8 sided dice, the system would just explode.
They have to be used consistently throughout the run of this edition, or things won't work, for factions/sub-factions, unit types like infantry or fliers, and even weapons (which are keywords, even though they're formatted and presented in a different fashion, which is why the assault weapon rules are wonky- the rule writer seems to have been under the impression that having an assault weapon gave the 'assault' keyword to the entire unit, when in fact it's model-based. Which is why keyword types are important to define beforehand).
I think the big difference going forward is sub-factions and factions will have less of everything. And much of what we'll see will be rehashes of the same stuff (most factions will have a stealth subfaction that gets -1 to hit at over 12", another that ignores cover saves and so on).
The single chapter books will just straight up have fewer options, and (at least for stratagems, a couple reprints from their parent and then some bonus stratagems just for them. Which in a way will be a win, since they'll get more tailored material than legions/chapters in the main books, but they'll also be arbitrarily be missing access to some of the universal good stuff (in terms or relics/warlord/stratagems).
The interesting thing to see will be how they handle orks and eldar (with established sub-factions where people will have expectations), vs Necron dynasties and AdMech Forge Worlds, which are just going to be pulled out of a convenient nether region right before printing.
I seen some places rule that changeling dose not work for CSM daemons as the daemon keyword is in the wrong place
This is clearly addressed in the Designer's Commentary.
Designer's Commentary wrote:
Q: What is the difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword?
A: The only real difference is that Faction keywords are used when building an army; when Battle-forging an army, for instance, you will often only be able to include units in the same detachment if they share the same Faction keyword. Also, if you are playing a matched play game, you will need to have an Army Faction – this is a Faction keyword that is shared by all of the units in your entire army (with the exception of those that are Unaligned). Once the battle has begun, there is no functional difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword.
I seen some places rule that changeling dose not work for CSM daemons as the daemon keyword is in the wrong place
This is clearly addressed in the Designer's Commentary.
Designer's Commentary wrote:
Q: What is the difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword?
A: The only real difference is that Faction keywords are used when building an army; when Battle-forging an army, for instance, you will often only be able to include units in the same detachment if they share the same Faction keyword. Also, if you are playing a matched play game, you will need to have an Army Faction – this is a Faction keyword that is shared by all of the units in your entire army (with the exception of those that are Unaligned). Once the battle has begun, there is no functional difference between a keyword and a Faction keyword.
Nice I missed this now here's a good question what tactic shoud I use for some Tzeentch warp talons and possessed with a chaos lord (love the models but can't use them in my thousand suns
The Raven Guard had 6 traits and 6 relics in Kauyon 7e....now they have 1 of each.
They had that many? That is pretty excessive. I would have gone for 2 of each for a little bit of extra variance, but 1 of each is decent as well.
I wonder what necrons will get for their relic. Maybe just the voidreaper, but then what would the veil of darkness be? I hope we get the veil. That's a classic bit of gear.
The Raven Guard had 6 traits and 6 relics in Kauyon 7e....now they have 1 of each.
They had that many? That is pretty excessive. I would have gone for 2 of each for a little bit of extra variance, but 1 of each is decent as well.
I wonder what necrons will get for their relic. Maybe just the voidreaper, but then what would the veil of darkness be? I hope we get the veil. That's a classic bit of gear.
The campaign books and "Angels of Death" had most if not all of the vanilla Chapters getting the same love as the actual book Chapters like BA/DA, barring characters.
I just have to say that the collectors edition for both of these books seems to be an incredibly poor deal. I know that this is usually true for collectors editions, but this one is really bad. You pay 30 dollars for a different cover and a ribbon? Really?
Oldmike wrote: Nice I missed this now here's a good question what tactic shoud I use for some Tzeentch warp talons and possessed with a chaos lord (love the models but can't use them in my thousand suns
Since both units have the Daemon keyword you might want to buff them with Heralds and The Changelling. Your Lord could go on a Disc of Tzeentch gaining that +1S from the Herald and the -1 to Hit from the Changelling, same with a CSM Sorcerer if you want to cast Prescience or Warptime on the Possesed. Warptalons could deep strike on the right moment once the group gets close to the enemy. Casting Boon of Change on the Possesed could give you quite a devastating unit if you are lucky with the D3 roll.
Now, I know this can be a pretty expensive combo, and your strategy may vary depending on your opponent - you will need to rush the group to get to other side of the board when facing Tau or Astra Militarum or stay in your deployment zone if you are facing Tyranids, Orks or Berserkers. I still have to playtest a lot but I think it offers quite a lot versatility and I'm having a blast converting the models.
The Raven Guard had 6 traits and 6 relics in Kauyon 7e....now they have 1 of each.
They had that many? That is pretty excessive. I would have gone for 2 of each for a little bit of extra variance, but 1 of each is decent as well.
I wonder what necrons will get for their relic. Maybe just the voidreaper, but then what would the veil of darkness be? I hope we get the veil. That's a classic bit of gear.
How is it excessive exactly? IIRC, the fething Ultramarines get that many relics and warlord traits in the new Codex. Why not the Raven Guard and White Scars too?
They gave us RG and WS players our own relics and trait lists in 7e. Now they've taken them away. Thats a step backwards no matter how you characterize it.
In the new SM codex Ultramarines get exactly 1 relic and 1 command trait.
And in 7th they had to wait for the 3rd last campaign book of the edition to even get anything unique to them (besides ~1 million characters and tyranic veterans, of course).
There's a lot of decrying marine chapters losing variance but they still have more now (1 trait 1 relic) than chaos legions had for long, long time.
The playing field is being levelled and that can only be good I expect to see necrons etc. Get a dozen or so relics and maybe 6 major dynasties, each getting similar treatment.
Probably likely to be the pattern for future books were seeing.
Dudeface wrote: There's a lot of decrying marine chapters losing variance but they still have more now (1 trait 1 relic) than chaos legions had for long, long time.
The playing field is being levelled and that can only be good I expect to see necrons etc. Get a dozen or so relics and maybe 6 major dynasties, each getting similar treatment.
Probably likely to be the pattern for future books were seeing.
I wouldn't call this "levelling the playing field". More like "pandering to the lowest common denominator".
Taking away options and variety from one faction to lower them to the standard of another faction is not what I want. I want that other faction to be boosted up to be on par with the rest of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: With the Kauyon campaign book, which I only purchased last Summer, I had a wide variety of Raven Guard relics, which let me do the things I want to do with my HQ characters.
I could give the Sniper Boltgun to a Veteran Scout Sgt, so I could approximate my own Raven Guard equivalent to Sgt Telion.Now I can't.
I could give the awesome Raven Guard Lightning claws (got bonus attacks for every wound it caused) and the Jump Pack that lets you use the jump pack to Move AND to Assault to a Captain, to create my own personalized RG captain (I don't want to use Kayvaan Shrike). Now I can't.
I could give the Raven Skull of Korvaad (grants a hatred aura bubble around the spot where the bearer dies), the assault Boltgun (basically a souped up Boltgun) and the Raven Guard artificer armour (grants shrouded) to my Chaplain, for a budget support character. Now I can't.
These are all new features and options that gave extra flavour and variety to my Raven Guard in the previous edition which I loved. I felt like my favourite Chapter was finally getting the love it deserved. Now thats all gone and now we have just a single Relic (the jump pack). I want those relics back, is a Relic and warlord trait list too much to ask for?
The Raven Guard had 6 traits and 6 relics in Kauyon 7e....now they have 1 of each.
They had that many? That is pretty excessive. I would have gone for 2 of each for a little bit of extra variance, but 1 of each is decent as well.
I wonder what necrons will get for their relic. Maybe just the voidreaper, but then what would the veil of darkness be? I hope we get the veil. That's a classic bit of gear.
How is it excessive exactly? IIRC, the fething Ultramarines get that many relics and warlord traits in the new Codex. Why not the Raven Guard and White Scars too?
They gave us RG and WS players our own relics and trait lists in 7e. Now they've taken them away. Thats a step backwards no matter how you characterize it.
What are you going to do with 6 traits and 6 relics? Are you intending to use all relics in the same army? Must be an important even to have that many relics in such a small force.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Now thats all gone and now we have just a single Relic (the jump pack). I want those relics back, is a Relic and warlord trait list too much to ask for?
I guess that would be fine, you are ok with a Space Marine codex with 48 relics and 48 warlord traits? Hopefully GW doesn't run out of ideas after the 15th relic, and relic #30-48 aren't just rehashes?
Apparently the 30th anniversary marine (likely $30 usd) will be able to use the power weapon vet sergeant option that doesn't come as a bit in the intercessor kit much to everyone's surprise.
Just bumping again for anyone who either has a book or knows if legions like EC and World Eaters can still bring noise Marines and berserkers as troops respectively? Thanks!
buddha wrote: Just bumping again for anyone who either has a book or knows if legions like EC and World Eaters can still bring noise Marines and berserkers as troops respectively? Thanks!
buddha wrote: Just bumping again for anyone who either has a book or knows if legions like EC and World Eaters can still bring noise Marines and berserkers as troops respectively? Thanks!
I also wish to know this.
I've read the army list and rules again and again and find no mention of this at all.
buddha wrote: Just bumping again for anyone who either has a book or knows if legions like EC and World Eaters can still bring noise Marines and berserkers as troops respectively? Thanks!
I also wish to know this.
I've read the army list and rules again and again and find no mention of this at all.
Much to my fears but thank you. I can still bring a vanguard detachment of course but it then makes it harder to get CP.
I got confirmation from the guy who did the first video review. Cults are now Elites only. Their Legion does not change their unit type. Which makes sense I guess GW wants to make all units viable. So CSM will be getting used now?
Sersi wrote: I got confirmation from the guy who did the first video review. Cults are now Elites only. Their Legion does not change their unit type. Which makes sense I guess GW wants to make all units viable. So CSM will be getting used now?
I want to find out if this is intentional (maybe the cult codeces will allow cult troops again so they didn't think to put it in the CSM codex), gonna try to ask on Facebook if this was an oversight.
Sersi wrote: I got confirmation from the guy who did the first video review. Cults are now Elites only. Their Legion does not change their unit type. Which makes sense I guess GW wants to make all units viable. So CSM will be getting used now?
Maybe? Only having two options for obj secured would kinda give them a role. It's annoying in the extreme, but I suppose with noise marines at 15 it'd be hard to resist running an EC battalion plus whatever else.
Do we know if cultists gain the legion keyword in their detachment? I have a feeling 3 minimum sized cultists squads to get the battalion will be quite common.
Sersi wrote: I got confirmation from the guy who did the first video review. Cults are now Elites only. Their Legion does not change their unit type. Which makes sense I guess GW wants to make all units viable. So CSM will be getting used now?
Does this extend to Death Guard and Thousand Sons? I'm still not entirely sure how much or how little information that is in this book is relevant to my armies...
buddha wrote: Do we know if cultists gain the legion keyword in their detachment? I have a feeling 3 minimum sized cultists squads to get the battalion will be quite common.
I can't imagine anybody deciding that the extra 120 points for 3 Cultists isn't worth an extra 3 Command Points.
The Raven Guard had 6 traits and 6 relics in Kauyon 7e....now they have 1 of each.
As Codex Blessed they do now get a relic for free rather than having to spend pts on it.
I don't want a free relic, I want a wider variety of Raven Guard Relics.
Specifically in my various army lists, I used to use the Claws relic, jump pack relic, storm bolter relic, stalker boltgun relic, artificer armour relic, and the Raven Skull relic. (Not all at the same time of course).
Now I just have access to a handful of generic Relics, and one Raven Guard Relic.
The Raven Guard had 6 traits and 6 relics in Kauyon 7e....now they have 1 of each.
As Codex Blessed they do now get a relic for free rather than having to spend pts on it.
I don't want a free relic, I want a wider variety of Raven Guard Relics.
Specifically in my various army lists, I used to use the Claws relic, jump pack relic, storm bolter relic, stalker boltgun relic, artificer armour relic, and the Raven Skull relic. (Not all at the same time of course).
Now I just have access to a handful of generic Relics, and one Raven Guard Relic.
I think the cult troops being elites only is definitely aimed at separating players. It's quite clear the Death Guard will feature Plague Marines as troop choices, etc. So I think they're trying to encourage players to eventually pick up the cult specific books (I'd imagine we get Khorne and/or Slaanesh within 18-24 months).
Elbows wrote: I think the cult troops being elites only is definitely aimed at separating players. It's quite clear the Death Guard will feature Plague Marines as troop choices, etc. So I think they're trying to encourage players to eventually pick up the cult specific books (I'd imagine we get Khorne and/or Slaanesh within 18-24 months).
It just makes me sad that this is most likely true.
buddha wrote: Do we know if cultists gain the legion keyword in their detachment? I have a feeling 3 minimum sized cultists squads to get the battalion will be quite common.
Cultists get the Legion keyword in the index, can't imagine why they would drop it in the Codex.
The one thing thing I noticed that would be challenging is for summoned Daemons. The profiles listed in the video did not include a Legion keyword. Does this mean a summoned unit could suddenly break your detachment and cause you to lose legion traits or battle forged status? AFAIK every unit has to fit into a detachment.
The other thing I noticed is with summoning, anything with the Daemon keyword can be summoned. Does this mean we could summon the new 2 wound possessed onto the table? If so, that would actually be amazing, summon Possessed to keep them from having to walk up the table.
Specifically in my various army lists, I used to use the Claws relic, jump pack relic, storm bolter relic, stalker boltgun relic, artificer armour relic, and the Raven Skull relic. (Not all at the same time of course).
Now I just have access to a handful of generic Relics, and one Raven Guard Relic.
To be clear, again, what you are asking for would necessitate more than FIFTY new relics in the space marine book, with the expectation that going forward each codex would have near that amount? Is that a good idea to you?
Who says it has to be in the new Codex? GW could have issued an Errata PDF to update the Warlord Traits, Relics and Stratagems for the Raven Guard, White Scars, Imperial Fists etc from the various 7e campaign books and supplements.
Or they could have re-released that content for 8e via White Dwarf.
Why are people discussing loyalist stuff in the CSM thread?
Frankly, I couldn't give a gak how many relics Raven Guard have got right now, despite having a couple thousand points sat in boxes, but if I did, I'd not look into the CSM Codex release news thread to discuss it.
Azreal13 wrote: Why are people discussing loyalist stuff in the CSM thread?
Frankly, I couldn't give a gak how many relics Raven Guard have got right now, despite having a couple thousand points sat in boxes, but if I did, I'd not look into the CSM Codex release news thread to discuss it.
You beat me to that one Azrael. Meantime, since WE and EC are in this codex, does that mean they're just not getting their own books? It seems strange that only 2 of the aligned legions would get books. I was seriously hoping for a WE codex when I heard that DG were getting one.
Battlesong wrote: You beat me to that one Azrael. Meantime, since WE and EC are in this codex, does that mean they're just not getting their own books? It seems strange that only 2 of the aligned legions would get books. I was seriously hoping for a WE codex when I heard that DG were getting one.
I think the logic is:
- Thousand Sons already got a codex and whole range of models, so they are going to have to get their own Codex again
- Death Guard are going to be in the starter set, and will be the first new chaos range in 8e, so they need a Codex also
- Emperor's Children do not have models which are anywhere near new. They will not start out with their own codex, and won't get one until they have the model release to go with it.
- World Eaters do not have models which are anywhere near new. Khorne got the Daemonkin book which as far as I can tell was paired with 0 new models (Kharn maybe happened at this time? But no unit boxes,) and was generally hated/not well received/why does this exist. Chaos/Khorne also maybe got the "Crimson Slaughter" book which as far as I can tell also everyone hated. They won't start out with their own codex, and won't get one until they have the model release to go with it.
Azreal13 wrote: Why are people discussing loyalist stuff in the CSM thread?
Frankly, I couldn't give a gak how many relics Raven Guard have got right now, despite having a couple thousand points sat in boxes, but if I did, I'd not look into the CSM Codex release news thread to discuss it.
You beat me to that one Azrael. Meantime, since WE and EC are in this codex, does that mean they're just not getting their own books? It seems strange that only 2 of the aligned legions would get books. I was seriously hoping for a WE codex when I heard that DG were getting one.
For the time being, that seems to be the case. They might get something in the future, but I'd suspect they will churn through most of the 'existing armies' first. If they break them out at all- they've languished so long without models despite their popularity, which makes me dubious.
Elbows wrote: I think the cult troops being elites only is definitely aimed at separating players. It's quite clear the Death Guard will feature Plague Marines as troop choices, etc. So I think they're trying to encourage players to eventually pick up the cult specific books (I'd imagine we get Khorne and/or Slaanesh within 18-24 months).
Reece and Frankie are saying Cult units can still be taken as troops if everyone in the detachment is from the same cult.
Elbows wrote: I think the cult troops being elites only is definitely aimed at separating players. It's quite clear the Death Guard will feature Plague Marines as troop choices, etc. So I think they're trying to encourage players to eventually pick up the cult specific books (I'd imagine we get Khorne and/or Slaanesh within 18-24 months).
Reece and Frankie are saying Cult units can still be taken as troops if everyone in the detachment is from the same cult.
Who and who? Also, a link to where they said this?
Elbows wrote: I think the cult troops being elites only is definitely aimed at separating players. It's quite clear the Death Guard will feature Plague Marines as troop choices, etc. So I think they're trying to encourage players to eventually pick up the cult specific books (I'd imagine we get Khorne and/or Slaanesh within 18-24 months).
Reece and Frankie are saying Cult units can still be taken as troops if everyone in the detachment is from the same cult.
Who and who? Also, a link to where they said this?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, its +1 to armor save when in cover.
I don't know why people keep thinking its a hit modifier. It's clearly stated in the rules for cover that it gives a bonus to armor.
Because it would make more sense to have it a hit modifier since cover blocking a shot or a stealth system hiding your position successfully means you're not actually hit... not that your actual armor is suddenly more effective at absorbing bullets.
Your conflating cover and concealment. Cover stops bullets, just like armor. Concealment makes you more difficult to see and as a result harder to hit, but not harder to hurt when you do get.
Elbows wrote: I think the cult troops being elites only is definitely aimed at separating players. It's quite clear the Death Guard will feature Plague Marines as troop choices, etc. So I think they're trying to encourage players to eventually pick up the cult specific books (I'd imagine we get Khorne and/or Slaanesh within 18-24 months).
Reece and Frankie are saying Cult units can still be taken as troops if everyone in the detachment is from the same cult.
Who and who? Also, a link to where they said this?
demontalons wrote: So if everyone has mark of slaanesh then noise marines are troops? Is that what it's saying?
No. They're saying if everyone is Emperor's Children, then Noise Marines may be taken as troops. Or, if everyone is World Eaters, then Berserkers may be taken as troops.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, its +1 to armor save when in cover.
I don't know why people keep thinking its a hit modifier. It's clearly stated in the rules for cover that it gives a bonus to armor.
Because it would make more sense to have it a hit modifier since cover blocking a shot or a stealth system hiding your position successfully means you're not actually hit... not that your actual armor is suddenly more effective at absorbing bullets.
Your conflating cover and concealment. Cover stops bullets, just like armor. Concealment makes you more difficult to see and as a result harder to hit, but not harder to hurt when you do get.
Cover inherently provides concealment since you're less likely to be spotted behind it. Before lecturing others, you should do some basic research next time.
Cover inherently provides concealment since you're less likely to be spotted behind it. Before lecturing others, you should do some basic research next time.
I mean, if we are lecturing... Thats false. A sheet of bulletproof glass, or the popemobile, would be examples of cover that are not concealment.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, its +1 to armor save when in cover.
I don't know why people keep thinking its a hit modifier. It's clearly stated in the rules for cover that it gives a bonus to armor.
Because it would make more sense to have it a hit modifier since cover blocking a shot or a stealth system hiding your position successfully means you're not actually hit... not that your actual armor is suddenly more effective at absorbing bullets.
Your conflating cover and concealment. Cover stops bullets, just like armor. Concealment makes you more difficult to see and as a result harder to hit, but not harder to hurt when you do get.
Cover inherently provides concealment since you're less likely to be spotted behind it. Before lecturing others, you should do some basic research next time.
If only I had been an Airborne Infantryman for 5 years and did 2 tours in Iraq and my life had actually depended on knowing the difference between cover and concealment.
Yes cover CAN provide concealment but that can only occur BEFORE contact occurs. After contact has occured, which is what you were talking about, things become either cover or concealment, or at the very least that how you should view them.
Finally since the rule about terrain says it provides COVER not that it provides CONCEALMENT. It makes perfect sense to give the +1 to armor save rather then a -1 to hit.
Are these the guys people always complain about drastically overstating how good things are? Because I laughed when he called the word bearer trait useful and the way they gushed over useless psychic abilities was borderline nauseating.
Because it isn't that - it's re-roll Morale.
It's horrible. Small units don't care and it doesn't do enough to make large units not haemorrhage from heavy losses.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Because it isn't that - it's re-roll Morale.
It's horrible. Small units don't care and it doesn't do enough to make large units not haemorrhage from heavy losses.
Ah woops, somehow confused the word bearer trait with renegades trait.
Yeah, reroll morale isn't as strong as the other choices. Seems pretty situational.
Are these the guys people always complain about drastically overstating how good things are? Because I laughed when he called the word bearer trait useful and the way they gushed over useless psychic abilities was borderline nauseating.
These are the "competitive tournament experts" GW brought in to playtest and balance 8th Edition.
To be fair they did bring in major tournament organizers in the us and uk. Those organizers just didn't always reach out to the super active players to test
Wonderwolf wrote: These are the "competitive tournament experts" GW brought in to playtest and balance 8th Edition.
Hmmm, so either GW had a bunch of yes men incapable of calling out balance issues testing things, or these guys are just terrible at balance in general and their feedback directly led to many of the balance issues.
I'd say it's one or the other going by that review. The review itself is either spineless hype mongering or the words of people who shouldn't be allowed to offer feedback on balance ever.
Wonderwolf wrote: These are the "competitive tournament experts" GW brought in to playtest and balance 8th Edition.
Hmmm, so either GW had a bunch of yes men incapable of calling out balance issues testing things, or these guys are just terrible at balance in general and their feedback directly led to many of the balance issues.
I'd say it's one or the other going by that review. The review itself is either spineless hype mongering or the words of people who shouldn't be allowed to offer feedback on balance ever.
Or option 3 is they had people playtest, gave feedback, and GW said "well that's all well and good but pass on those ideas, we will do our own!". Which as time goes on, is most likely what happened.
This lets them tell the public "sure, we had play testers try this out!!!" and not be lying.
str00dles1 wrote: Or option 3 is they had people playtest, gave feedback, and GW said "well that's all well and good but pass on those ideas, we will do our own!". Which as time goes on, is most likely what happened.
This lets them tell the public "sure, we had play testers try this out!!!" and not be lying.
Well.... no. We can tell from that review that at least one sample was totally unable to give useful feedback, and that alone means that any useful feedback GW had would be totally diluted. It's merely a question of were they incompetent or just total pushovers and yes men.
Crimson Devil wrote: Or people who have a better view of the whole rule set and GW's plan for it.
Again, no. Unless the "whole rule set" includes overhauls to the basic rules, a lot of options are just garbage.
Playtesting is a very complicated process - from my limited experience its a bit like the forum here just with less people.
Alot depends on how clear the goals are and the time that is set for achiveing them and if people accept them or have thier own goals that may or may not be compatable.
There are lots of moving parts - the game system itself, exploits, army composition, ease of use.
Crimson Devil wrote: What you really want is a villain to blame. Someone to heap all of your scorn on.
"GW is whatever we need it to be. Because GW is the table top company we deserve, but not the one we need right now. So, we'll complain about their products, because they can take it. Because they are not our hero. They are a producer of models. A writer of rules. A Games Workshop."
Crimson Devil wrote: What you really want is a villain to blame. Someone to heap all of your scorn on.
Nah I'm just enjoying mocking them. The fact this edition is at least kinda balanced proves gw is improving, even if that just means outsourcing balance. But I do think it'll take time for gw to learn who they should be listening primarily to, and clearly it isn't these guys lol.
and the re-roll of Moral isn't too bad, I tend to look at it this way, if a space marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on a 6 how would we respond to that?
that said I do agree death to the false emperor being IoM only is a bit of a pain there. I'm not a fan of rules that give bonuses vs a specific faction, as it can create an odd set up where depending on your local meta an army is much stronger or much weaker
BrianDavion wrote: and the re-roll of Moral isn't too bad, I tend to look at it this way, if a space marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on a 6 how would we respond to that?
That's actually a 1 CP Stratagem for Space Marines.
Did the Khorne Daemon Prince get some buff. Especially considering those new juice psychic powers, The +1A seems quite poor. I mean, with the right power, he can buff himself with +2S abd +1A.
Trollbert wrote: Did the Khorne Daemon Prince get some buff. Especially considering those new juice psychic powers, The +1A seems quite poor. I mean, with the right power, he can buff himself with +2S abd +1A.
Keep your silly magic away from mah Khorney Prince
BrianDavion wrote: and the re-roll of Moral isn't too bad, I tend to look at it this way, if a space marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on a 6 how would we respond to that?
All Loyalist marines get that exact re-roll of morale in addition to their tactic. If a Space Marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on the 6 only against CSM, that would literally be an identical platform to Word Bearers...
The Word Bearers' trait is meant to show their unique fanaticism, but in terms of rules it is identical to that of every single chapter, who get bonuses in addition to their morale bonus. That is more than a little underwhelming.
BrianDavion wrote: and the re-roll of Moral isn't too bad, I tend to look at it this way, if a space marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on a 6 how would we respond to that?
All Loyalist marines get that exact re-roll of morale in addition to their tactic. If a Space Marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on the 6 only against CSM, that would literally be an identical platform to Word Bearers...
And we get Death to the False Emperor in addition to that I guess. Getting more hits against half the game isn't exactly a bad thing, what with AM being stupid right now.
BrianDavion wrote: and the re-roll of Moral isn't too bad, I tend to look at it this way, if a space marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on a 6 how would we respond to that?
All Loyalist marines get that exact re-roll of morale in addition to their tactic. If a Space Marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on the 6 only against CSM, that would literally be an identical platform to Word Bearers...
And we get Death to the False Emperor in addition to that I guess. Getting more hits against half the game isn't exactly a bad thing, what with AM being stupid right now.
While that is true, albeit irrelevant half the time, I'm talking about Word Bearers specifically, not the other Legions. The morale bonus is fluffy and fine but their fanaticism isn't exactly represented well when every single Loyalist has an identical bonus in addition to their tactic.
edit: for the record, it's not the end of the world, but on the whole I think it's extremely disappointing
The idea of a morale buff is good for Word Bearers, it just... isn't a very good buff. "Roll two take the better", or "+X to the leadership of all models" would have been more useful tactics.
Overall I think Word Bearers will still be in a decent spot though, thanks to their stratagem. We've already in the BAO that summoning is much stronger than many give it credit for with the top placing Chaos player having 600 summoning points.
BrianDavion wrote: and the re-roll of Moral isn't too bad, I tend to look at it this way, if a space marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on a 6 how would we respond to that?
All Loyalist marines get that exact re-roll of morale in addition to their tactic. If a Space Marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on the 6 only against CSM, that would literally be an identical platform to Word Bearers...
And we get Death to the False Emperor in addition to that I guess. Getting more hits against half the game isn't exactly a bad thing, what with AM being stupid right now.
While that is true, albeit irrelevant half the time, I'm talking about Word Bearers specifically, not the other Legions. The morale bonus is fluffy and fine but their fanaticism isn't exactly represented well when every single Loyalist has an identical bonus in addition to their tactic.
edit: for the record, it's not the end of the world, but on the whole I think it's extremely disappointing
You can say that for about all of the traitor legions though. they either copied SM, or have a weaker version of what they already got.
Renegades have what World eaters should. 1 attack is crap compaired to getting to run AND charge, for the melee faction.
BrianDavion wrote: and the re-roll of Moral isn't too bad, I tend to look at it this way, if a space marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on a 6 how would we respond to that?
All Loyalist marines get that exact re-roll of morale in addition to their tactic. If a Space Marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on the 6 only against CSM, that would literally be an identical platform to Word Bearers...
And we get Death to the False Emperor in addition to that I guess. Getting more hits against half the game isn't exactly a bad thing, what with AM being stupid right now.
While that is true, albeit irrelevant half the time, I'm talking about Word Bearers specifically, not the other Legions. The morale bonus is fluffy and fine but their fanaticism isn't exactly represented well when every single Loyalist has an identical bonus in addition to their tactic.
edit: for the record, it's not the end of the world, but on the whole I think it's extremely disappointing
You can say that for about all of the traitor legions though. they either copied SM, or have a weaker version of what they already got.
Renegades have what World eaters should. 1 attack is crap compaired to getting to run AND charge, for the melee faction.
Which legions traits that a chaos army doesn't have access too are worse than the space marine ones apart from word bearers ?
Night Lords, Chaos Renegades, Emperor's children, World Eaters all have really strong traits when applied in the correct situation, you are also ignoring how powerful chaos space marine startegems are, veterans of the long war and Endless Cacophony are amazing easily two of the best stratagems in the game currently.
You can say that for about all of the traitor legions though. they either copied SM, or have a weaker version of what they already got.
Yeah there's a lot of laziness with shared traits, but the point is that the Word Bearers' unique trait is something that all Space Marine chapters have - every single one, in addition to their trait. The Word Bearers should have also had their summoning ability be a part of their trait and their stratagem be something else entirely simply to make them unique, something like that anyway
BrianDavion wrote: and the re-roll of Moral isn't too bad, I tend to look at it this way, if a space marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on a 6 how would we respond to that?
All Loyalist marines get that exact re-roll of morale in addition to their tactic. If a Space Marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on the 6 only against CSM, that would literally be an identical platform to Word Bearers...
And we get Death to the False Emperor in addition to that I guess. Getting more hits against half the game isn't exactly a bad thing, what with AM being stupid right now.
While that is true, albeit irrelevant half the time, I'm talking about Word Bearers specifically, not the other Legions. The morale bonus is fluffy and fine but their fanaticism isn't exactly represented well when every single Loyalist has an identical bonus in addition to their tactic.
edit: for the record, it's not the end of the world, but on the whole I think it's extremely disappointing
You can say that for about all of the traitor legions though. they either copied SM, or have a weaker version of what they already got.
Renegades have what World eaters should. 1 attack is crap compaired to getting to run AND charge, for the melee faction.
Which legions traits that a chaos army doesn't have access too are worse than the space marine ones apart from word bearers ?
Night Lords, Chaos Renegades, Emperor's children, World Eaters all have really strong traits when applied in the correct situation, you are also ignoring how powerful chaos space marine startegems are, veterans of the long war and Endless Cacophony are amazing easily two of the best stratagems in the game currently.
That's my point though, they mostly have the same traits, or weaker like Word bearers. I wasn't talking about stratagems. World Eaters chapter tactics is not really strong in the right situations. You still need to charge, and get into melee. Running AND charging is literally 100% better. As that improves your odds greatly to do what both want to do, melee
The only trait that is weaker is word bearers because it is atsknf, and based on that logic black templars are bad because there chapter tactic is an icon of khorne.
Both Factions Imperial Fist/Iron warriors = Bad - really good (The entire trait depends on how much terrain is on the board)
Raven Guard/Alpha Legion = Amazing vs shooting armies (Bad vs melee and alpha strike armies who do there fighting within 12inch)
Space Marines only Ultramarines = Decent (bad vs shooting armies)
Iron Hands = Good
Salamanders = Really good
White Scars = Good
Black Templars = Good (Chaos can get this on every unit except Plague marines, Rubics and Noise Marines)
Chaos Only Black Legion = Decent
Chaos Renegades = Really Good (This is arguably the best chapter tactic)
Night Lords = Really Good (Aweful vs fearless armies)
World eaters = Really Good (Keep in mind world eaters build around using this trait and they have access to the black Templars chapter tactic threw the icon of khorne)
Emperor's Children = Amazing vs melee armies (bad vs shooting armies)
Word Bearers = Meh (Not bad but it is meh since it is just atsknf)
Eh.
The Fist Warriors trait doesn't depend on how much terrain, it depends on how much the opponent uses terrain.
A heavy non-infantry presence (or big infantry units) means they largely can't anyway. If they want to assault or deep strike, terrain isn't really something they care about either (since it will slow assault units down in a lot of cases)
Which is the problem with the trait (and a lot of the others)- it is wholly dependent on the opponent letting you benefit from it.
On the other hand, Renegades, WE and Templars are determined by the player building around them. So the player determines how influential the trait is.
Salamanders, of course, are just benefiting all the time on everything, regardless of what either player does. Which honestly is bad design when compared to everything else.
Word bearers tactic combos very well with cultists, dark apostle, and maybe a lieutenant for a dirt cheap, effective battallion. You just need to add some heavy support or fast attack to do the heavy lifting.
Thanks! Interesting there is no aspiring sorceror pointscost that would be huge if They went down in cost (I think they're overpriced for models that auto die on a miscast)
macluvin wrote: Word bearers tactic combos very well with cultists, dark apostle, and maybe a lieutenant for a dirt cheap, effective battallion. You just need to add some heavy support or fast attack to do the heavy lifting.
Or just run an IW battalion and use the warlord trait. Or Abaddon. Or Huron. Who can all buff cultists better than apostle and have legion tactics which benefit other pats of their army and the cultists depending on loadout.
This is the biggest issue with word bearers, it's better to have morale immunity for a few units and then fall back on msu and naturally small squads then it is to have a weak morale rule across the legion. Because the weak morale rule and a dark apostle still leave a 10 man squad as a potential liability.
Oldmike wrote: The odd thing is rubrics no longer have a listing for the aspiring so do we pay as if it was a rubric?
I assume so, given that's what happens for other sarge types. Could be an oversight, wait for the inevitable FAQ to be sure, but for now that's how I'd play it.
Goes a long way towards making rubrics usable tbh, that sorcerer was a horrible tax on the unit given how useless his smite was+lack of bolter. Now he is still a tax on msu, but not as horrific.
Not feeling it. Haven't felt it since the very early leaks. Wasnt that excited for it though, and perhaps that god awful paint job is masking a better sculpt than otherwise appears.
Azreal13 wrote: Not feeling it. Haven't felt it since the very early leaks. Wasnt that excited for it though, and perhaps that god awful paint job is masking a better sculpt than otherwise appears.
Azreal13 wrote: Not feeling it. Haven't felt it since the very early leaks. Wasnt that excited for it though, and perhaps that god awful paint job is masking a better sculpt than otherwise appears.
Same. I'm just as dissappointed as when I saw the first Death Guard models. Might look acceptable if they used the damn colour scheme for the Death Guard and not this stupid snot green.
Azreal13 wrote: Not feeling it. Haven't felt it since the very early leaks. Wasnt that excited for it though, and perhaps that god awful paint job is masking a better sculpt than otherwise appears.
In fairness it's a bad pic and a bad paintjob (why all the purple ). As is usual with new GW models when you see them in 360 or with a different scheme the usually look better.
I was worried that we were going to get something very Hi-Tech Miniature-ish (and I love Hi-Tech minis, but everything always has something that takes it over the top). The wings were what I was most afraid of.
I think most of what I don't like about Morty is the paint job. Give it a less snot-green paint job with the badly contrasting blue/purple (whatever it is... bad pic) and it probably works a bit better.
Otherwise... yeah. Nothing about this model does it for me in the same way Magnus and Guilliman did.
Azreal13 wrote: Not feeling it. Haven't felt it since the very early leaks. Wasnt that excited for it though, and perhaps that god awful paint job is masking a better sculpt than otherwise appears.
What specifically is wrong with the paintjob?
What needs to be wrong with it beyond not being to my taste?
Specifically, it's entirely too bright and multicolored to be appropriate, it's also too clean, but that's inevitable given the GW studio style.
Look at 30K Morty
Look at original Daemon Morty
This deviates too far from the aesthetic of the 30K in the paint job and too far from the established image I've carried in my head for 20 plus years of the daemon.
Azreal13 wrote: Not feeling it. Haven't felt it since the very early leaks. Wasnt that excited for it though, and perhaps that god awful paint job is masking a better sculpt than otherwise appears.
In fairness it's a bad pic and a bad paintjob (why all the purple ). As is usual with new GW models when you see them in 360 or with a different scheme the usually look better.
Nah, I'm really not liking the direction of most of the big organic kits recently, plenty of the characters, infantry and vehicles, but CAD design and plastic just don't make good bedfellows for me.
Azreal13 wrote: Not feeling it. Haven't felt it since the very early leaks. Wasnt that excited for it though, and perhaps that god awful paint job is masking a better sculpt than otherwise appears.
What specifically is wrong with the paintjob?
What needs to be wrong with it beyond not being to my taste?
Specifically, it's entirely too bright and multicolored to be appropriate, it's also too clean, but that's inevitable given the GW studio style.
Look at 30K Morty
Look at original Daemon Morty
This deviates too far from the aesthetic of the 30K in the paint job and too far from the established image I've carried in my head for 20 plus years of the daemon.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was just wondering what specifically you didn't like about it, what your tastes are. I don't like the paint-job either, its too bright and gaudy and I don't like the purple and pink.
Azreal13 wrote: Not feeling it. Haven't felt it since the very early leaks. Wasnt that excited for it though, and perhaps that god awful paint job is masking a better sculpt than otherwise appears.
What specifically is wrong with the paintjob?
What needs to be wrong with it beyond not being to my taste?
Specifically, it's entirely too bright and multicolored to be appropriate, it's also too clean, but that's inevitable given the GW studio style.
Look at 30K Morty
Look at original Daemon Morty
This deviates too far from the aesthetic of the 30K in the paint job and too far from the established image I've carried in my head for 20 plus years of the daemon.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was just wondering what specifically you didn't like about it, what your tastes are. I don't like the paint-job either, its too bright and gaudy and I don't like the purple and pink.
But I do like the model itself.
Too bright and gaudy about covers everything! Technically I'm sure it's top notch (will need more pics to be sure) but technically proficient isnt always the same thing as good paint job.
The Death Guard models definitely suffer from the cartoony paint jobs they've been given. Excellent models, but the studio scheme looks like something out of a Saturday morning cartoon.
Arbitrator wrote: The Death Guard models definitely suffer from the cartoony paint jobs they've been given. Excellent models, but the studio scheme looks like something out of a Saturday morning cartoon.
demontalons wrote: Thanks! Interesting there is no aspiring sorceror pointscost that would be huge if They went down in cost (I think they're overpriced for models that auto die on a miscast)
They will probably pull the AS from the unit altogeather in non-TS armies. And make him more expensive for TS players to bring and add something either totally useless or so niche it will almost always be useless.
What they should be doing is pulling the aspiring sorcerer from the unit altogether, and making him a support unit that fills an Elite or HQ slot.
Model looks great. I'll wait for official photograph comes out before passing judgment about the paint scheme based on a terrible cell phone photograph with light reflecting across the entire image.
Desubot wrote: Doesnt seem to be any cool other leaks in that photo thought i cant CSI enhance the top cat walk full of dudes :/
Inceptors on the right, then the Blight Drone, then the Easy To Build(tm) Death Guard, then on the far left more Poxwalkers (you can tell by the protruding, jagged bones and shortness).
I'm mixed on Morty. Agree the pastel paint job does the figure no favors. Like the body, but think the wings are horrible. Some weird feather/insect hybrid which I think just doesn't work. Curious to see how he would look with the terrorgheist wing or even some blight drone fans.
Wow. Even as a EC guy I have to say that is an amazing model. I'm not keen on the bright paint job either, but man that model looks good. He's Guilliman sized right?
I was going to sell the DG models from my two Dark Imperium boxes on Ebay. But I might start a small DG force now.
Sersi wrote: Wow. Even as a EC guy I have to say that is an amazing model. I'm not keen on the bright paint job either, but man that model looks good. He's Guilliman sized right?
It's hard to tell from this photo, but it looks that way. He certainly doesn't seem to be as massive as Magnus.
silent25 wrote: I'm mixed on Morty. Agree the pastel paint job does the figure no favors. Like the body, but think the wings are horrible. Some weird feather/insect hybrid which I think just doesn't work. Curious to see how he would look with the terrorgheist wing or even some blight drone fans.
See, I'm the opposite: his wings are suited to his 'Angel of Death' persona as the tattered wings of an Angel but the legs especially on the body look stupidly big. I know DG are supposed to be big and bloated but Morty was notoriously thin (the appearance of death) even as a Daemon Prince: take a look at the original DP Mortarian to see what I mean.
I'm..disappointed, to say the least. I was hoping to have a death guard army but Mortarion looks god awful, those wings don't suit at all and you would think he would be much fatter.
Really? I think he's really well done. Take his head and mask for instance with crown/iron halo. Yeah, he's go the spikes growing out of him. But at least from this angle I don't see any random tentacles.
Sersi wrote: Wow. Even as a EC guy I have to say that is an amazing model. I'm not keen on the bright paint job either, but man that model looks good. He's Guilliman sized right?
It's hard to tell from this photo, but it looks that way. He certainly doesn't seem to be as massive as Magnus.
Well looking from the previously leaked WIP photos
it seems to be on one of those new 130 bases
as such it seems to me hes physical body is about 130mm tall
with wings maybe double it since he is floating as well.
Sersi wrote: Really? I think he's really well done. Take his head and mask for instance with crown/iron halo. Yeah, he's go the spikes growing out of him. But at least from this angle I don't see any random tentacles.
I'll agree if there's no tentacles that would be a pretty big plus.
I think my reaction is better summed up as what the feth. That thing is hideous.. and not in the FWGUO super awesome appropriate for the fluff sort of way but more like the Robby Gman silly baroque mixed with pumbagore wtf.
I think my reaction is better summed up as what the feth. That thing is hideous.. and not in the FWGUO super awesome appropriate for the fluff sort of way but more like the Robby Gman silly baroque mixed with pumbagore wtf.
I don't think the purple hood helps at all. Purple doesn't suit Death Guard.
I think my reaction is better summed up as what the feth. That thing is hideous.. and not in the FWGUO super awesome appropriate for the fluff sort of way but more like the Robby Gman silly baroque mixed with pumbagore wtf.
I don't think the purple hood helps at all. Purple doesn't suit Death Guard.
Yeah i think thats the thing i dont like about it.
All that purple is just reminding me of slannesh or tzeench
silent25 wrote: I'm mixed on Morty. Agree the pastel paint job does the figure no favors. Like the body, but think the wings are horrible. Some weird feather/insect hybrid which I think just doesn't work. Curious to see how he would look with the terrorgheist wing or even some blight drone fans.
See, I'm the opposite: his wings are suited to his 'Angel of Death' persona as the tattered wings of an Angel but the legs especially on the body look stupidly big. I know DG are supposed to be big and bloated but Morty was notoriously thin (the appearance of death) even as a Daemon Prince: take a look at the original DP Mortarian to see what I mean.
To be fair, the original Mortarian is pretty mediocre. I prefer Morty to be properly bloated with Nurgle's gifts.
silent25 wrote: I'm mixed on Morty. Agree the pastel paint job does the figure no favors. Like the body, but think the wings are horrible. Some weird feather/insect hybrid which I think just doesn't work. Curious to see how he would look with the terrorgheist wing or even some blight drone fans.
See, I'm the opposite: his wings are suited to his 'Angel of Death' persona as the tattered wings of an Angel but the legs especially on the body look stupidly big. I know DG are supposed to be big and bloated but Morty was notoriously thin (the appearance of death) even as a Daemon Prince: take a look at the original DP Mortarian to see what I mean.
To be fair, the original Mortarian is pretty mediocre. I prefer Morty to be properly bloated with Nurgle's gifts.
I'll take tall, thin Death with a tattered cloak, wings and a rusted scythe over whatever that is supposed to be.
silent25 wrote: I'm mixed on Morty. Agree the pastel paint job does the figure no favors. Like the body, but think the wings are horrible. Some weird feather/insect hybrid which I think just doesn't work. Curious to see how he would look with the terrorgheist wing or even some blight drone fans.
See, I'm the opposite: his wings are suited to his 'Angel of Death' persona as the tattered wings of an Angel but the legs especially on the body look stupidly big. I know DG are supposed to be big and bloated but Morty was notoriously thin (the appearance of death) even as a Daemon Prince: take a look at the original DP Mortarian to see what I mean.
To be fair, the original Mortarian is pretty mediocre. I prefer Morty to be properly bloated with Nurgle's gifts.
I'll take tall, thin Death with a tattered cloak, wings and a rusted scythe over whatever that is supposed to be.
That could be a little too close to the Nightbringer model, though.
Azreal13 wrote: Not feeling it. Haven't felt it since the very early leaks. Wasnt that excited for it though, and perhaps that god awful paint job is masking a better sculpt than otherwise appears.
What specifically is wrong with the paintjob?
Very pastel, making it blend together and kind of washing the whole model out. Same problem as most of the studio DG forces, especially the plagueburst crawler
Azreal13 wrote: Not feeling it. Haven't felt it since the very early leaks. Wasnt that excited for it though, and perhaps that god awful paint job is masking a better sculpt than otherwise appears.
What specifically is wrong with the paintjob?
Very pastel, making it blend together and kind of washing the whole model out. Same problem as most of the studio DG forces, especially the plagueburst crawler
The Plagueburst Crawler looks good compared to the rest of the DG range: no stupid extra fancy bitz, original DeathGuard colour scheme, just a simple DG tank, nothing too over the top. With a bit of rust and oily effects I'd say the crawler would look great!
mrhappyface wrote: I know DG are supposed to be big and bloated but Morty was notoriously thin (the appearance of death) even as a Daemon Prince: take a look at the original DP Mortarian to see what I mean.
\
IFC_Casting wrote: I'm..disappointed, to say the least. I was hoping to have a death guard army but Mortarion looks god awful, those wings don't suit at all and you would think he would be much fatter.
I think this pair of posts (that were back to back) illustrate one of the key points to Morty perfectly.
Aside from suffering from terrible-cellphone-pic syndrome, and a bit too much purple for my own tastes, a lot of people seem to be taking umbrage at the DG/Plaguemarines not being painted in dirty-white and green, despite Chaos Marines not all wearing their "standard" Legion colour schemes 10,000 years later, you have people's duelling mental images of what Mortarion might/should look like, based (in this case) off a rail-thin Epic model from nearly 30 years ago that was nice enough but more of a winged grim reaper than Space Marine Daemon Prince in appearance on one hand, and the stereotypical GUO/Glottkin/Nurgle DP look on the other hand.
mrhappyface wrote: I know DG are supposed to be big and bloated but Morty was notoriously thin (the appearance of death) even as a Daemon Prince: take a look at the original DP Mortarian to see what I mean.
\
IFC_Casting wrote: I'm..disappointed, to say the least. I was hoping to have a death guard army but Mortarion looks god awful, those wings don't suit at all and you would think he would be much fatter.
I think this pair of posts (that were back to back) illustrate one of the key points to Morty perfectly.
Aside from suffering from terrible-cellphone-pic syndrome, and a bit too much purple for my own tastes, a lot of people seem to be taking umbrage at the DG/Plaguemarines not being painted in dirty-white and green, despite Chaos Marines not all wearing their "standard" Legion colour schemes 10,000 years later, you have people's duelling mental images of what Mortarion might/should look like, based (in this case) off a rail-thin Epic model from nearly 30 years ago that was nice enough but more of a winged grim reaper than Space Marine Daemon Prince in appearance on one hand, and the stereotypical GUO/Glottkin/Nurgle DP look on the other hand.
I think it will probably look better in person with a different paint scheme, for me that purple cloth kills it but so far I'm going on the one blurry shot.
those that want a tall thin skeletal dude might want to have a look at The Others: 7 Sins Apocalypse box (CMON)
65mm to the top of the wings, skeletal, plenty of skulls, just swap in a scythe from FW (and a fancy energy pistol if desired) and you've got a pretty good update to the old epic Mortarion
You see, I'm actually a fan of how human he looks. Demon princes generally have a fair degree of control over their form in the fluff, so it makes sense to me morty's function over form sort of mindset would lead to him just looking like a normal human+wings.
At the same time, that's why the really involved armor and weapons with lots of iconography and doodads on every exposed bit annoys me. Feels unfitting, even if it is fairly in keeping with overall chaos aesthetics.
It's still a good model, I think I just need time to move past the image I had been picturing from the less detailed leaks.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: those that want a tall thin skeletal dude might want to have a look at The Others: 7 Sins Apocalypse box (CMON)
I quite like this one as well. Still very Chaosy without looking quite so cluttered.
Spoiler:
While I agree that your example is better than the official version, describing that model using words like "without looking quite so cluttered" is like describing a hoarder's home as an efficient use of space, lol. I think the humourous "none purer" marine meme has only slightly more bobs and bits on his armor than that guy.
Trollbert wrote: Is this a missprint in the german version or are lasher tendrils on maulerfiends really 6 attacks instead of D6?
No idea, none of the CSM codex reviews have mentioned Maulerfiends.
Then you heard it here first I guess.
Hmmm, is 6 extra S6 attacks enough to make up for the poor weapon skill?
For 1 CP you get the reroll all failed to hits and to wounds in either the melee or shooting phase.
That makes them pretty impressive. And the are 20 points cheaper than the magma cutters (on which the stratagem is wasted).
). As is usual with new 
