Apologist wrote:
I'm being dim, I think – when do you roll to determine the Type of a weapon?

"Heavy D6" - how many shots it gets.

Type like Heavy D6.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


4/19 of the custom successor chapter traits appear in the normal chapter traits.

IDK how much of the craftworld list was part of the original craftworlds' traits. I don't think any? Unless something like bieltan snuck in there and I didnt' notice.

nah. Should be more than 4

Master Artisan - part of Salamanders
Born Heros - part of Space Wolves
Hungry for Battle - part of Blood Angels
Indomitable - part of Dark Angels
Scions of Forge - a third of Iron Hands
5++ vs. Mortals - part of Black Templars
Psychic re-rolls - part of Blood Ravens
Tactical Withdrawl - part of White Scars

Probably more

Don't forget the ones stolen from other codexes.

Fearsome aspect: stolen from Night Lords.

I'm sure there's more but that's the one that irks me.

 Imateria wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I love how they had to exclude broodbros from tank aces, apparently there has never been a tank ace fallen to the cult Man GSC can't catch a break.

There seems to be some fun stuff in there. I don't think the game needed more overwatching on a 5+, and now guard vehicles have better living metal/demonic resilience then Necrons of chaos with jury rigging. It's also a bit awkward that they named it the exact same thing as the stratagem "jury rigging" but at least they are trying to make the tanks better and sentinels got a bump which is nice.

All in all I'd say the guard preview is the best yet as it clearly attempts to patch the short comings and issues folks have been having while not being overly good. Hopefully the rest of the book matches this and GSC and Tau both level out to this result.

I'd say the Tau one looked really good to me, but I don't know enough about AM to say whether losing your warlord trait for Tank Aces is a good trade in the way it's an auto take for Tyranids and Adaptive Physioligy.

I also noticed they specifically said there are only 12 regimental doctrines for AM, thats quite a lot less than we've seen for most other factions. Then again, Craftworlds have something like 25 but at least 15 of them are useless, so hopefully this time they actually stopped when they ran out of good ideas.

I will totally pay a CP to give -1AP to a tank commander, I think it is not necessary to give up your WT and we usually swim in CP

the_scotsman; nurglitch – thanks for the swift replies

Jury rigged repairs, that is just so good, i'm starting to think about fielding mechanized company once again. My 10 chimeras have been long enough on the shelf since the 7th edition..

 Spreelock wrote:
Jury rigged repairs, that is just so good, i'm starting to think about fielding mechanized company once again. My 10 chimeras have been long enough on the shelf since the 7th edition..

Put double flamer on those and use the "new" gunnery experts to add some pain

 Spreelock wrote:
Oh yeah, my artillery is going to like jury rigged repairs and reroll the number of shots. Tank Ace thingy also seems legit.

Fething Artillery is stupid enough already - did not need more of a boost.

Like the new lore elements of the Stormtroopers

 Kanluwen wrote:

You pick two of them but it locks you out of Regimental Relics, Orders, and characters.

Do they? I don't think the other build a faction systems lock you out of relics, and in the article it specifically mentions that you can combine disciplined shooters with FRFSRF

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

You pick two of them but it locks you out of Regimental Relics, Orders, and characters.

Do they? I don't think the other build a faction systems lock you out of relics, and in the article it specifically mentions that you can combine disciplined sharpshooters with FRFSRF

theres regimental orders dependent on guard subfaction. FRFSRF is a Generic order. one will have to weigh not just the value of the regimental benefits, loss of characters, relics mostlikely, and definately the order in that case.

Bdrone wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

You pick two of them but it locks you out of Regimental Relics, Orders, and characters.

Do they? I don't think the other build a faction systems lock you out of relics, and in the article it specifically mentions that you can combine disciplined sharpshooters with FRFSRF

theres regimental orders dependent on guard subfaction. FRFSRF is a Generic order, so its both correct and not correct. one will have to weigh not just the value of the regimental benefits, loss of characters, relics mostlikely, and definately the order in that case.

Oh ok that makes sense. That's a fair trade off, really - you can make your own faction and combine traits to your liking, but you lose out on some sub faction specific options.

Some of the IG stuff looks really strong. Promising. I also like the way some of the options are restricted from Brood Brothers which answers my question from yesterday.

Can anyone explain to me why only Codex Marines can build their own chapter but still benefit from Chapter-specific stuff? Isn't that imbalanced by definition?

the_scotsman wrote:

Catchan Dominus Siege Bombard just got real, that's ~18 Lascannon+ shots that ignore LoS. 108 potential damage, that's one dead knight every round.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Bdrone wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

You pick two of them but it locks you out of Regimental Relics, Orders, and characters.

Do they? I don't think the other build a faction systems lock you out of relics, and in the article it specifically mentions that you can combine disciplined sharpshooters with FRFSRF

theres regimental orders dependent on guard subfaction. FRFSRF is a Generic order, so its both correct and not correct. one will have to weigh not just the value of the regimental benefits, loss of characters, relics mostlikely, and definately the order in that case.

Oh ok that makes sense. That's a fair trade off, really - you can make your own faction and combine traits to your liking, but you lose out on some sub faction specific options.

Yeah it would be

really

really

way

more balanced if some

other factions

had this perfectly reasonable, normal requirement to get their subfaction-specific bonuses only if they didn't take the more power-gameable custom traits.

the_scotsman wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Bdrone wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

You pick two of them but it locks you out of Regimental Relics, Orders, and characters.

Do they? I don't think the other build a faction systems lock you out of relics, and in the article it specifically mentions that you can combine disciplined sharpshooters with FRFSRF

theres regimental orders dependent on guard subfaction. FRFSRF is a Generic order, so its both correct and not correct. one will have to weigh not just the value of the regimental benefits, loss of characters, relics mostlikely, and definately the order in that case.

Oh ok that makes sense. That's a fair trade off, really - you can make your own faction and combine traits to your liking, but you lose out on some sub faction specific options.

Yeah it would be

really

really

way

more balanced if some

other factions

had this perfectly reasonable, normal requirement to get their subfaction-specific bonuses only if they didn't take the more power-gameable custom traits.

...Marines get special treatment, don't they? Of course they do

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Some of the IG stuff looks really strong. Promising. I also like the way some of the options are restricted from Brood Brothers which answers my question from yesterday.

Can anyone explain to me why only Codex Marines can build their own chapter but still benefit from Chapter-specific stuff? Isn't that imbalanced by definition?

Marines unbalanced? Surely you jest. Marine players everywhere say otherwise.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Some of the IG stuff looks really strong. Promising. I also like the way some of the options are restricted from Brood Brothers which answers my question from yesterday.

Can anyone explain to me why only Codex Marines can build their own chapter but still benefit from Chapter-specific stuff? Isn't that imbalanced by definition?

Marines unbalanced? Surely you jest. Marine players everywhere say otherwise.

 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.

Nurglitch wrote:
Type like Heavy D6.

Basically inferior version of catachan's roll extra dice when picking # of shots and pick highest


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Catchan Dominus Siege Bombard just got real, that's ~18 Lascannon+ shots that ignore LoS. 108 potential damage, that's one dead knight every round.

Why you mention catachan with this photo? This is custom doctrine so you won't be combining catachan with this.

Furthermore neither this nor catachan doctrine increases # of shots you can make at most. Just makes higher results bit more likely. With Dominus siege bombard you roll 2d6 discard lowest so your average is around 9. With this you roll 2d6 and then can reroll 1. So if you roll 5 and 3 you are in bit of a quandry. If you reroll that 3 1/6 time it's same, 1/3 time you get less. Mathematically you get slightly more by rerolling 3 but it's not much and risks weakening your salvo.

And combining catachan and this is illegal.

Babar_babar wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I love how they had to exclude broodbros from tank aces, apparently there has never been a tank ace fallen to the cult Man GSC can't catch a break.

There seems to be some fun stuff in there. I don't think the game needed more overwatching on a 5+, and now guard vehicles have better living metal/demonic resilience then Necrons of chaos with jury rigging. It's also a bit awkward that they named it the exact same thing as the stratagem "jury rigging" but at least they are trying to make the tanks better and sentinels got a bump which is nice.

All in all I'd say the guard preview is the best yet as it clearly attempts to patch the short comings and issues folks have been having while not being overly good. Hopefully the rest of the book matches this and GSC and Tau both level out to this result.

I'd say the Tau one looked really good to me, but I don't know enough about AM to say whether losing your warlord trait for Tank Aces is a good trade in the way it's an auto take for Tyranids and Adaptive Physioligy.

I also noticed they specifically said there are only 12 regimental doctrines for AM, thats quite a lot less than we've seen for most other factions. Then again, Craftworlds have something like 25 but at least 15 of them are useless, so hopefully this time they actually stopped when they ran out of good ideas.

I will totally pay a CP to give -1AP to a tank commander, I think it is not necessary to give up your WT and we usually swim in CP

The article words it exactly the same as Tyranids Adaptive Physioligy, specifically saying you will have to give up your warlord trait to get them. The stratagem lets you take a second one, not circumvent doing away with the warlord trait.

tneva82 wrote:
And combining catachan and this is illegal.

Not really a Guard player beyond Loyal 32, obviously, would have been cool to combine them though, clearly i misread it.

gunnery experts feels like a bit of a middle finger to sisters with miracle dice

 Imateria wrote:

Babar_babar wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I love how they had to exclude broodbros from tank aces, apparently there has never been a tank ace fallen to the cult Man GSC can't catch a break.

There seems to be some fun stuff in there. I don't think the game needed more overwatching on a 5+, and now guard vehicles have better living metal/demonic resilience then Necrons of chaos with jury rigging. It's also a bit awkward that they named it the exact same thing as the stratagem "jury rigging" but at least they are trying to make the tanks better and sentinels got a bump which is nice.

All in all I'd say the guard preview is the best yet as it clearly attempts to patch the short comings and issues folks have been having while not being overly good. Hopefully the rest of the book matches this and GSC and Tau both level out to this result.

I'd say the Tau one looked really good to me, but I don't know enough about AM to say whether losing your warlord trait for Tank Aces is a good trade in the way it's an auto take for Tyranids and Adaptive Physioligy.

I also noticed they specifically said there are only 12 regimental doctrines for AM, thats quite a lot less than we've seen for most other factions. Then again, Craftworlds have something like 25 but at least 15 of them are useless, so hopefully this time they actually stopped when they ran out of good ideas.

I will totally pay a CP to give -1AP to a tank commander, I think it is not necessary to give up your WT and we usually swim in CP

The article words it exactly the same as Tyranids Adaptive Physioligy, specifically saying you will have to give up your warlord trait to get them. The stratagem lets you take a second one, not circumvent doing away with the warlord trait.

While i take the community team with a grain of salt for the actual wording of things they say alternatively to giving up the warlord trait you can use the strat and the strat itself does not mention giving up warlord traits


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
gunnery experts feels like a bit of a middle finger to sisters with miracle dice

You mean the half doctrine that is the weak version of half the doctrine catachan have had since the guard codex that predates sisters by more than a year?

 Imateria wrote:
The article words it exactly the same as Tyranids Adaptive Physioligy, specifically saying you will have to give up your warlord trait to get them. The stratagem lets you take a second one, not circumvent doing away with the warlord trait.

It says nothing about Warlord Traits at all.

"Use this Stratagem before the battle. Select one Tyranids INFANTRY unit or one Tyranids MONSTER model from your army that does not have an Adaptive Physiology, and then select one Adaptive Physiology to apply to that unit or model until the end of the battle. You can only use this Stratagem once per battle."

Where does it say I give up my Warlord Trait to use this Stratagem? Where does it say that this is a second Adaptive Physiology?

All this does is allow you to pay on CP and give something Adaptive Physiology. The only restriction within the strat is that you cannot use this strat to give something that already has Adaptive Physiology a second Adaptive Physiology. If you want to take Adaptive Physiology and don't want to pay 1 CP then you have to give up your Warlord trait, but the only requirement outside of paying 1 CP for this strat is that you have to "have a Tyranids CHARACTER in your army" (PABOB Page 76).

BrianDavion wrote:
gunnery experts feels like a bit of a middle finger to sisters with miracle dice

Or they're running out of creativity and are just recycling traits that already exist. It's just a piece of the Catachan doctrine after all.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
gunnery experts feels like a bit of a middle finger to sisters with miracle dice

Or they're running out of creativity and are just recycling traits that already exist. It's just a piece of the Catachan doctrine after all.

ahh well in fairne4ss "create a chapter" has always taken elements from the canon ones and put some new ones in, thats always been the case. I don't see it as unimaginative, I see it as allowing you to get some "variation" on themes, such as taking stealthy and marksmen with Marines to get a raptors style chapter

I think it's a good idea. More variety in creating Your Guys™ is a good thing when implemented correctly.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think it's a good idea. More variety in creating Your Guys™ is a good thing when implemented correctly.

I agree...also am excited to use those last two stratagems mentioned for hellhounds and sentinels. Specifically the hellhound one to give my ambushing devil dog a greater chance on getting that kill. Kind of weird how you get to reroll the wound roll only if they have cover but if they are in the open not so much but I'll take it for 1cp for sure. Looking good so far, excited to see the rest.

I'm hoping that we'll see a future PA that covers chaos renegades and gives some warband creation traits and the like for chaos.

Can we keep to the topic? The topic isn't; "let's drown the World in a million CSM tears".

Tank Ace strat specifically allows you to take one and a regular warlord trait, the article itself mentions this. All it says is pick a tank that doesn't have an ability, and give it one. That means two tanks can get it if you give up WLT or take one and have a WLT as well. That said with vigilus you could take the vigilus overwatch WLT, the 5+ overwatch trait/reroll shots trait, and two tank aces. Not a bad start for a pure armored company. Curious to see what else we have. Seems like GW is trying to add flavor for tank companies

The Stormtroopers abitkes are pretty cool too. There's some nasty stuff there if you know what you're doing. Basically anything but the extra hits traits have some serious power to them.

Dukeofstuff wrote:
What are the downsides to all this stuff?

They are IOM but not space marines

Valkyrie's are vehicles? They can take Tank Ace?

Tank Ace a vulture. AP1 twin punisher gatling.

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
Valkyrie's are vehicles? They can take Tank Ace?

These are regiment "tactics", and valkyrie's etc are not regiment units.

ItsPug wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
Valkyrie's are vehicles? They can take Tank Ace?

These are regiment "tactics", and valkyrie's etc are not regiment units.

Tank Ace isn't anything to do with the Regimental Tactics, and all the stratagem requires is for the target to be a Astra Militarum Vehicle.
So unless the section on Tank Aces specifically says Valkyries and what have you can't gain the benefit of Tank Ace abilitites, it should be perfectly fine to make a Valk or Vendetta a 'Tank' Ace.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

ItsPug wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
Valkyrie's are vehicles? They can take Tank Ace?

These are regiment "tactics", and valkyrie's etc are not regiment units.

Tank Ace isn't anything to do with the Regimental Tactics, and all the stratagem requires is for the target to be a Astra Militarum Vehicle.
So unless the section on Tank Aces specifically says Valkyries and what have you can't gain the benefit of Tank Ace abilitites, it should be perfectly fine to make a Valk or Vendetta a 'Tank' Ace.

Well I guess we know what one of the first faq questions is going to be.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well I guess we know what one of the first faq questions is going to be.

There's nothing ambiguous about it. The strat says "Astra Militarum Vehicle". Valks have both the "Astra Militarum" and "Vehicle" keywords, just like Russes and Chimeras.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well I guess we know what one of the first faq questions is going to be.

There's nothing ambiguous about it. The strat says "Astra Militarum Vehicle". Valks have both the "Astra Militarum" and "Vehicle" keywords, just like Russes and Chimeras.

Ok. Possibly the first errata then?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well I guess we know what one of the first faq questions is going to be.

There's nothing ambiguous about it. The strat says "Astra Militarum Vehicle". Valks have both the "Astra Militarum" and "Vehicle" keywords, just like Russes and Chimeras.

I think the argument is that it might be unintentional from a design perspective, but honestly doing that just means you now have an Imperial Navy Fighter ace strategy, especially if you used it on something like an Avenger or Lightning. Wouldn't be amazing but definitely thematic.

 Imateria wrote:

Babar_babar wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I love how they had to exclude broodbros from tank aces, apparently there has never been a tank ace fallen to the cult Man GSC can't catch a break.

There seems to be some fun stuff in there. I don't think the game needed more overwatching on a 5+, and now guard vehicles have better living metal/demonic resilience then Necrons of chaos with jury rigging. It's also a bit awkward that they named it the exact same thing as the stratagem "jury rigging" but at least they are trying to make the tanks better and sentinels got a bump which is nice.

All in all I'd say the guard preview is the best yet as it clearly attempts to patch the short comings and issues folks have been having while not being overly good. Hopefully the rest of the book matches this and GSC and Tau both level out to this result.

I'd say the Tau one looked really good to me, but I don't know enough about AM to say whether losing your warlord trait for Tank Aces is a good trade in the way it's an auto take for Tyranids and Adaptive Physioligy.

I also noticed they specifically said there are only 12 regimental doctrines for AM, thats quite a lot less than we've seen for most other factions. Then again, Craftworlds have something like 25 but at least 15 of them are useless, so hopefully this time they actually stopped when they ran out of good ideas.

I will totally pay a CP to give -1AP to a tank commander, I think it is not necessary to give up your WT and we usually swim in CP

The article words it exactly the same as Tyranids Adaptive Physioligy, specifically saying you will have to give up your warlord trait to get them. The stratagem lets you take a second one, not circumvent doing away with the warlord trait.

The stratagej has zero wording to effect of additional or any references to first one. You pick vehicle, it gets tank ace as long as that vehicle did not already have one.

No need to give up wt to use stratagem


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 slave.entity wrote:
Tank Ace a vulture. AP1 twin punisher gatling.

Vulture doesn't have TURRET twln punisher gatling. Doesn't work. Russ sponsons doesn't get ap either

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Can we keep to the topic? The topic isn't; "let's drown the World in a million CSM tears".

And maybe not bring up Codex: Space Marines then too, eh? "Can anyone explain to me why only Codex Marines can build their own chapter but still benefit from Chapter-specific stuff? Isn't that imbalanced by definition?"
You know where that leads (as many other threads have already shown)

 bullyboy wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Can we keep to the topic? The topic isn't; "let's drown the World in a million CSM tears".

And maybe not bring up Codex: Space Marines then too, eh? "Can anyone explain to me why only Codex Marines can build their own chapter but still benefit from Chapter-specific stuff? Isn't that imbalanced by definition?"
You know where that leads (as many other threads have already shown)

isnt the "reason" they can still access them due to being successors? do any of the other "build a_____" thingys state they're a successor(I genuinely dont know)? Nids have splinter fleets, is it that for guard, or are you creating a specific independent regiment?

I dont care either way as I'm 100% Salamanders SM only good or bad. Just want the other factions/races to get the good stuff too.

It seems rather underwhelming for the Astra Militarum's psychic awakening rules support to consist of a revamp of the 4th edition Imperial Guard doctrines system. Heck, so little of this whole "event" has felt whelming at all. What has "awakened", exactly? Do any of these disparate engagements have anything to do with each other? Or is this just, in fact, just an average Sunday in the Imperium of Man, no different from its constant state of galactic warfare.

The focus on Tank Aces is nice, old Maximilian Wieseman was always on my Forge World wishlist, too bad I never managed to get the funds together before it disappeared. Really, though, "create your own regiment / chapter / craftworld / cult / warband / bingo club" should be a part of a faction's core rules instead of shunted off to a supplement that comes out years after the main army list.

Haven't seen all, but I think I like the Astra Militarum stuff best thus far (aside from a gazillion Stormtrooper doctrines that boil down to variants of exploding 6s of some kind).

Litte and/or situational buffs to units like Bullgryn, Hellhounds, Sentinels, Punisher-vehicles, etc.. that I can all see being useful without being game-breaking.

Tau is almost Marine-levels of straight-up OP power-creep madness.

GSC is just garbage.

Astra Militarum (what we've seen) is the kind of stuff I'd like to see from these books.

 bullyboy wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Can we keep to the topic? The topic isn't; "let's drown the World in a million CSM tears".

And maybe not bring up Codex: Space Marines then too, eh? "Can anyone explain to me why only Codex Marines can build their own chapter but still benefit from Chapter-specific stuff? Isn't that imbalanced by definition?"
You know where that leads (as many other threads have already shown)

It's a genuine question - is there any negative in the case of Codex Space Marines or is it literally imbalanced? You'll also note that the rest of that post was entirely on topic (that you seem to have entirely ignored); "Some of the IG stuff looks really strong. Promising. I also like the way some of the options are restricted from Brood Brothers which answers my question from yesterday."

You attempting to call me out for what you believe is hypocrisy is also off topic. Stop wasting posts off topic.

E - we'll have to wait to see the rest of the book to see if GSC have been hard done by, as always it is too early to tell these things.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

It's a genuine question - is there any negative in the case of Codex Space Marines or is it literally imbalanced? You'll also note that the rest of that post was entirely on topic (that you seem to have entirely ignored); "Some of the IG stuff looks really strong. Promising. I also like the way some of the options are restricted from Brood Brothers which answers my question from yesterday."
.

Of course tournament data is not the end-all-be-all of measuring these things, but it's a reasonable indicator to get an idea where things are.

But by those numbers, yes, the current Marine book (not just Iron Hands and Raven Guard, though they lead the pack) is the most broken army in the history of 40K by a long margin. Nothing remotely compares. Not 5th Grey Knights. Not TauDar. Not Screamerstar. Not Maelific Lords, Ynnari or the Castellan.

It's pretty out there.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

It's a genuine question - is there any negative in the case of Codex Space Marines or is it literally imbalanced? You'll also note that the rest of that post was entirely on topic (that you seem to have entirely ignored); "Some of the IG stuff looks really strong. Promising. I also like the way some of the options are restricted from Brood Brothers which answers my question from yesterday."
.

Of course tournament data is not the end-all-be-all of measuring these things, but it's a reasonable indicator to get an idea where things are.

But by those numbers, yes, the current Marine book (not just Iron Hands and Raven Guard, though they lead the pack) is the most broken army in the history of 40K by a long margin. Nothing remotely compares. Not 5th Grey Knights. Not TauDar. Not Screamerstar. Not Maelific Lords, Ynnari or the Castellan.

It's pretty out there.

Apologies, I don't mean 'imbalanced' in terms of power level of the codex, I mean imbalanced in the sense that every other faction has to give something up to get custom traits while SM don't? Am I understanding this right? On a purely game mechanics level there is a discrepancy there?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

It's a genuine question - is there any negative in the case of Codex Space Marines or is it literally imbalanced? You'll also note that the rest of that post was entirely on topic (that you seem to have entirely ignored); "Some of the IG stuff looks really strong. Promising. I also like the way some of the options are restricted from Brood Brothers which answers my question from yesterday."
.

Of course tournament data is not the end-all-be-all of measuring these things, but it's a reasonable indicator to get an idea where things are.

But by those numbers, yes, the current Marine book (not just Iron Hands and Raven Guard, though they lead the pack) is the most broken army in the history of 40K by a long margin. Nothing remotely compares. Not 5th Grey Knights. Not TauDar. Not Screamerstar. Not Maelific Lords, Ynnari or the Castellan.

It's pretty out there.

Apologies, I don't mean 'imbalanced' in terms of power level of the codex, I mean imbalanced in the sense that every other faction has to give something up to get custom traits while SM don't? Am I understanding this right? On a purely game mechanics level there is a discrepancy there?

Yes. A custom trait marine army is still a successor chapter of it's parent and gets their strategems etc.

Where as your custom Hive fleet is just that and does not, for instance get the Kraken strategem, relics or the new spell from PA

wighti wrote:
Yes. A custom trait marine army is still a successor chapter of it's parent and gets their strategems etc.

Where as your custom Hive fleet is just that and does not, for instance get the Kraken strategem, relics or the new spell from PA

Thanks for the response. Sounds kinda dumb when a discrepancy as obvious as this exists in the game.

Do we think they're going to bring the custom subfaction traits in line with SM or bring the SM traits in line with everyone else? Surely they can't keep the two things separate? Surely such an obvious imbalance on a mechanical level such as this is a mistake.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

wighti wrote:
Yes. A custom trait marine army is still a successor chapter of it's parent and gets their strategems etc.

Where as your custom Hive fleet is just that and does not, for instance get the Kraken strategem, relics or the new spell from PA

Thanks for the response. Sounds kinda dumb when a discrepancy as obvious as this exists in the game.

Do we think they're going to bring the custom subfaction traits in line with SM or bring the SM traits in line with everyone else? Surely they can't keep the two things separate? Surely such an obvious imbalance on a mechanical level such as this is a mistake.

Considering all the releases for SM followed their SM setup in regards to successors , whilest everyone else didn't, i'd assume it works as intended for GW so no chance in hell something happening to that state of affaires.


Further these books often shared an SM faction and non SM factions and maintained that status quo.

Some nice stuff in there for guard kinda sprinkled around. For those finding it underwhelming, if you're judging it by marines you're almost always going to be let down when you compare them to marines. We've already seen marines get the best of all worlds and often can have all the cakes and eat them too.

This is a very good look for guard, not game breaking, but gives you tools and some interesting options. Options are what this is all about, or should be anyways.

I can fault GW for a great many things, but they didn't so far do bad by the guard with this, that I see anyways and i've gone over it up, down and side ways.

They did do bad with marines and I don't think they'll ever really fix that but you can't let that be the benchmark of balance of power as if the arms race was following that it would be an absolute crap fest in this game.

Good players I feel will get some nice tools out of this, for guard at least, not sure how GSC look. Also some nice tools for Tau, and we'll see more for the Tempestus tomorrow but so far I'm thrilled to see them getting fleshed out some and for those who say " Why are they a seperate thing ? " They've been partially segregated as their own thing since 6th I believe ? For anyone just playing now, I can see that feeling odd. Just realize it just gives option to run them alone but doesn't force you to do so as they are still part of the guard forces that can moonlight alone.

As for any comments on the story line of the psychic awakening, who really thought this was going to follow some grand design ? I always expected them to be just some small side stories where the book was simply a vehicle to give all the factions touch ups in a more rapid fashion with small model releases intermixed.

I do see so far some good stuff for the guard, I'll make up my mind more for tomorrow so we'll see then.

So, will Tempestus be like a completely new mini dex now? Or can you still include them in a mono-guard army under their Codex IA doctrine and stratagem?

 Esmer wrote:
So, will Tempestus be like a completely new mini dex now? Or can you still include them in a mono-guard army under their Codex IA doctrine and stratagem?

You can't put them on same detachment and have them have their original doctrine either. For that you had to be own detachment. Same way with these no doubt. If you don't want them I'm sure you can put to same detachment with IG guys same as now

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

wighti wrote:
Yes. A custom trait marine army is still a successor chapter of it's parent and gets their strategems etc.

Where as your custom Hive fleet is just that and does not, for instance get the Kraken strategem, relics or the new spell from PA

Thanks for the response. Sounds kinda dumb when a discrepancy as obvious as this exists in the game.

Do we think they're going to bring the custom subfaction traits in line with SM or bring the SM traits in line with everyone else? Surely they can't keep the two things separate? Surely such an obvious imbalance on a mechanical level such as this is a mistake.

Kee in mind an Ultramarines sucessor is still an ultramarines sucessor whereas there's no such thing as a "Ulthwe sucessor craftworld" this is a matter of rules and fluff interaction.

Personally I think the obvious thing is to only give marines access to those expanded abilities when running a pure force. so no running a ultramarines detachment and a raven guard detachment and using both their strats. you get one, or the other, or NEITHER.

that said can we please not derail this thread with "Marines get X! Marines are OP" again

tneva82 wrote:

 Esmer wrote:
So, will Tempestus be like a completely new mini dex now? Or can you still include them in a mono-guard army under their Codex IA doctrine and stratagem?

You can't put them on same detachment and have them have their original doctrine either. For that you had to be own detachment. Same way with these no doubt. If you don't want them I'm sure you can put to same detachment with IG guys same as now

I know, hence mono guard army and not detachment. However, I am wondering if these Scions doctrines are basically just alternatives for the "Storm Troopers" doctrine or if things will work completely different now.

 Esmer wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Esmer wrote:
So, will Tempestus be like a completely new mini dex now? Or can you still include them in a mono-guard army under their Codex IA doctrine and stratagem?

You can't put them on same detachment and have them have their original doctrine either. For that you had to be own detachment. Same way with these no doubt. If you don't want them I'm sure you can put to same detachment with IG guys same as now

I know, hence mono guard army and not detachment. However, I am wondering if these Scions doctrines are basically just alternatives for the "Storm Troopers" doctrine or if things will work completely different now.

Probably just alternatives but we will see, they’ll say something today

We will find out later today a bit more for them. Though running multiple detachments isn't that hard to do and is in fact a wanted thing.

So I'm thinking they will clip into a guard list same as they used to and not have their doctrine. However just take one detachment for the guard and another for the tempestus. and win win.

I could see trying to run a few detachments actually. One with tempestus, one with foot guard and another group with mechanize/armor units. Trying to milk the most from the doctrines and new toys and actually have a pretty talent heavy group. Some tank ace/commander tanks rolling around and regenerating, the tempestus doing some slick stuff and being all tacticool and your guard just stacking some consistent buffs to add in weight of fire and hold zones all with new tools, strats and perks at their disposal.

Not IH amazing but in the right hands I can see this all giving players a bit of a headache while also feeling fun to run. Which is good to me anyways.

Just noticed that the Scions regiments names is basically just GW going through the Greek Alphabet...man, such creativity

 Esmer wrote:
Just noticed that the Scions regiments names is basically just GW going through the Greek Alphabet...man, such creativity

Better that than them trying to come up with copyright friendly nonsense terms.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

It's a genuine question - is there any negative in the case of Codex Space Marines or is it literally imbalanced? You'll also note that the rest of that post was entirely on topic (that you seem to have entirely ignored); "Some of the IG stuff looks really strong. Promising. I also like the way some of the options are restricted from Brood Brothers which answers my question from yesterday."
.

Of course tournament data is not the end-all-be-all of measuring these things, but it's a reasonable indicator to get an idea where things are.

But by those numbers, yes, the current Marine book (not just Iron Hands and Raven Guard, though they lead the pack) is the most broken army in the history of 40K by a long margin. Nothing remotely compares. Not 5th Grey Knights. Not TauDar. Not Screamerstar. Not Maelific Lords, Ynnari or the Castellan.

It's pretty out there.

Apologies, I don't mean 'imbalanced' in terms of power level of the codex, I mean imbalanced in the sense that every other faction has to give something up to get custom traits while SM don't? Am I understanding this right? On a purely game mechanics level there is a discrepancy there?

Correct. Every faction besides Codex: Space Marines must give up subfaction-specific relics, wl traits, stratagems, etc.

Space Marines not only get 6x as many of all those things, as well as unique subfaction-specific rules nobody else gets like super doctrines and psychic power lists, but they get to choose their chapter tactics and take all of that as well.

tbf though that is not the only subfaction-trait related imbalance out there in the game.

The drukhari codex has been split into 3 factions and daemons 4, which must be fielded in exclusion to gain subfaction tactics.

CSM, thousand sons, death guard, grey knights, and genestealer cults all still have subfaction tactics that dont' affect their vehicle units. Particularly relevant to myself GSC have a codex with like 16 non-character units in it and can only get subfaction tactics on 5 of those units.

Death Guard, Grey Knights, Thousand Sons, Blood Angels etc are all locked into a single subfaction tactic with no flexibility to choose, and on top of that a lot of the mono-faction books have the worst chapter traits out there, like Death Guard's "Rapid fire out to 18" range" trait. Daemons get double screwed because they're locked into a single subfaction tactic AND their book is subdivided AND, seemingly for no reason at all, their incredibly lackluster chapter tactics work like auras where you need to be close to a character for them to work? The khorne trait is literally half of 'ere we go and they decided to limit it to a character aura, baffling.

So, Space Marines definitely have been getting more than anyone else got, but they're just "Tier 1" in a tiered system of subfaction related nonsense balance.

 Esmer wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Esmer wrote:
So, will Tempestus be like a completely new mini dex now? Or can you still include them in a mono-guard army under their Codex IA doctrine and stratagem?

You can't put them on same detachment and have them have their original doctrine either. For that you had to be own detachment. Same way with these no doubt. If you don't want them I'm sure you can put to same detachment with IG guys same as now

I know, hence mono guard army and not detachment. However, I am wondering if these Scions doctrines are basically just alternatives for the "Storm Troopers" doctrine or if things will work completely different now.

So far every single doctrine has been alternative and no 2 different doctrines working in game. I'm willing to bet money storm troopers not breaking trend

 grouchoben wrote:
Not to mention the thousands of trees chopped down...

Sorry that this reply is both late and off topic, but something of a personal hobby-horse of mine. Cutting down trees is not a bad thing, so long as the land is then used to grow more trees, which is almost always the case with trees which will be turned into paper. Growing trees suck a decent amount of carbon out of the atmosphere, but fully grown trees are basically carbon neutral and if they aren't felled and used they will likely end up burning in a forest fire and putting all the carbon right back into the air. Paper is actually a fantastic carbon sink so long as it doesn't get burned at any point. A modern commercial forest where fast-growing trees are regularly felled is way more efficient at reducing atmospheric CO2 levels than a natural one.

 Perfect Organism wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
Not to mention the thousands of trees chopped down...

Sorry that this reply is both late and off topic, but something of a personal hobby-horse of mine. Cutting down trees is not a bad thing, so long as the land is then used to grow more trees, which is almost always the case with trees which will be turned into paper. Growing trees suck a decent amount of carbon out of the atmosphere, but fully grown trees are basically carbon neutral and if they aren't felled and used they will likely end up burning in a forest fire and putting all the carbon right back into the air. Paper is actually a fantastic carbon sink so long as it doesn't get burned at any point. A modern commercial forest where fast-growing trees are regularly felled is way more efficient at reducing atmospheric CO2 levels than a natural one.

That is indeed incredibly off topic.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Tau is almost Marine-levels of straight-up OP power-creep madness.

I'm not getting this. What is your basis for that thought?

Tempestus article up

Reading now.

Relic Hotshot Laspistol:


Warlord Trait:

Stratagems:


Seems solid-ish. Makes me hopeful!

Lovely. I always play a thematic adeptus custodes and Tempestus Force, with melta guns, heavy volley guns and bullgryns. Everything I have read here (Like the bullgryn stratagem) looks splendid for my army!

Looks like Precision Drop can both Drop in Melta/Flamer Range AND be utilized by a Vendetta! Very useful for my list.

Love the new stuff for Tempestus so far. It really fleshes them out to be more than just special weapon caddies in a guard list. I may actually consider starting them now since there's enough variety within their new goodies.

Can't fix dem links anymore, so:

Gee if imperium started mass producing this titans would have something to fear :lol:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 necrontyrOG wrote:
Looks like Precision Drop can both Drop in Melta/Flamer Range AND be utilized by a Vendetta! Very useful for my list.

12" ds preventers becoming even more useful

tneva82 wrote:
Gee if imperium started mass producing this titans would have something to fear :lol:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 necrontyrOG wrote:
Looks like Precision Drop can both Drop in Melta/Flamer Range AND be utilized by a Vendetta! Very useful for my list.

12" ds preventers becoming even more useful

Except this is a disembark, not a deepstrike

Kaneda88 wrote:

Except this is a disembark, not a deepstrike

Same thing.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:

Except this is a disembark, not a deepstrike

Same thing.

Does the 12” ds preventer also prevent disembarks in that range? I have my doubts

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:

Except this is a disembark, not a deepstrike

Same thing.

its not, disembark doesn't use the reserve. otherwise you would never be able to disembark models after getting a transport killed in combat.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:

Except this is a disembark, not a deepstrike

Same thing.

its not, disembark doesn't use the reserve. otherwise you would never be able to disembark models after getting a transport killed in combat.

Reserves and Reinforcements are two separate rules.

They are not reserves, but just like Da Jumping Orks or whatever, they are still reinforcements.

They are removed from the table and set up again.

Embarking - If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked inside the transport.

Disembarking - Any unit that begins its Movement phase embarked within a transport can disembark before the transport moves. When a unit disembarks, set it up on the battlefield so that all of its models are within 3" of the transport and not within 1" of any enemy models – any disembarking model that cannot be set up in this way is slain.

FAQ

Q: What rules apply to units that are removed from the battlefield
after deployment

A: If a rule or ability causes a unit to be removed from the
battlefield and subsequently set back up, the following
rules apply to that unit:

1. Any rules that are triggered by or apply to units that
are ‘set up on the battlefield as reinforcements’ are also
triggered by and apply to that unit when it is set up on
the battlefield.

Reserves (units not deployed during the deployment phase) are just a sub-group of a larger category of rules that are reinforcements (any units set up mid-game for basically any reason).

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:

Except this is a disembark, not a deepstrike

Same thing.

its not, disembark doesn't use the reserve. otherwise you would never be able to disembark models after getting a transport killed in combat.

Reserves and Reinforcements are two separate rules.

They are not reserves, but just like Da Jumping Orks or whatever, they are still reinforcements.

They are removed from the table and set up again.

Embarking - If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked inside the transport.

Disembarking - Any unit that begins its Movement phase embarked within a transport can disembark before the transport moves. When a unit disembarks, set it up on the battlefield so that all of its models are within 3" of the transport and not within 1" of any enemy models – any disembarking model that cannot be set up in this way is slain.

FAQ

Q: What rules apply to units that are removed from the battlefield
after deployment

A: If a rule or ability causes a unit to be removed from the
battlefield and subsequently set back up, the following
rules apply to that unit:

1. Any rules that are triggered by or apply to units that
are ‘set up on the battlefield as reinforcements’ are also
triggered by and apply to that unit when it is set up on
the battlefield.

Reserves (units not deployed during the deployment phase) are just a sub-group of a larger category of rules that are reinforcements (any units set up mid-game for basically any reason).

Holy gak, so Primaris deep strike preventers are even more hilariously broken than I thought. Move primaris infiltrators up to a transport, destroy it and you auto-wipe the whole squad inside?

I mean, it's almost certainly not intended that way.

If you play a friendly game, ignore it.

But RAW, those no-set-up-within-12" auras block out a lot of stuff you wouldn't think of initially. Summoning. Pink Horrors splitting or Poxwalkers re-filling. Yncarne-arrival-in-death, etc.., etc..

I like that Relic Hot-Shot Laspistol.

Scions seem to have some pretty nice stuff in general.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
I mean, it's almost certainly not intended that way.

If you play a friendly game, ignore it.

But RAW, those no-set-up-within-12" auras block out a lot of stuff you wouldn't think of initially. Summoning. Pink Horrors splitting or Poxwalkers re-filling. Yncarne-arrival-in-death, etc.., etc..

I mean, it does make me want to use it with my GSC clamavus, since he often ends up charging a vehicle along with his buddies. he charges in with his aberrant friends at a repulsor and just zlorps the 10 primaris marines out of existence with his phat beats when the transport is destroyed.

Oh look, Scions can get a straight up AP bonus on their weapons and still proc extra shots. That's not power creep at all whatsoever.

feth the rules writers, seriously.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh look, Scions can get a straight up AP bonus on their weapons and still proc extra shots. That's not power creep at all whatsoever.

feth the rules writers, seriously.

How? The new doctrines replace old and you have 1 doctrine

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh look, Scions can get a straight up AP bonus on their weapons and still proc extra shots. That's not power creep at all whatsoever.

feth the rules writers, seriously.

How? The new doctrines replace old and you have 1 doctrine

Facts and reality won't stop a chance for Slayer-Fan to gak all over the writers.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh look, Scions can get a straight up AP bonus on their weapons and still proc extra shots. That's not power creep at all whatsoever.

feth the rules writers, seriously.

No, they can’t, it’s one doctrine or the other


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
I mean, it's almost certainly not intended that way.

If you play a friendly game, ignore it.

But RAW, those no-set-up-within-12" auras block out a lot of stuff you wouldn't think of initially. Summoning. Pink Horrors splitting or Poxwalkers re-filling. Yncarne-arrival-in-death, etc.., etc..

Reading the reinforcement section of the rulebook makes it pretty clear disembarking models from a transport are not counted as reinforcements among other things because they are counted as being on the battlefield while inside the transport just not in any defined location.

Didn't think it was possible, but personally I am quite excited by the previews for both vanilla Guard and the Tempestus Scions. Looks like the tank legion and Omega Banshees are back on the menu around here, wahey!

Biggest choice right now.. extra range or extra AP.

Wait, is somebody really trying to argue that Infiltrators block disembark? That is a stretch.

Right peeps I'm going to make another thread for the remaining PA books and request that this one is closed. It's become quite a beast and has tons of off topic tangents and conversations taking place.

I hope that's OK? Will update front post of new topic as best I can.

Okay, make it so!