Noticed that people have found a few unannounced updates to datasheets in new boxes, thought there should be a proper place to collect them all. If you guys find anything else feel free to put them in here too
Necrons
Canoptek Spyder
6 wounds (was 4)
5 attacks (was 4)
Particle beamer changed from [24", Assault 6, 6/0/1] to [18", Assault 6, 5/0/1](it lists the shots for both weapons)
Automaton Claws changed from [S+User/AP-2/d3] to [S+2/AP-3/2]
Spoiler:
Triarch Praetorians
3 attacks (was 2)
Rods of Covenant increased to 2 damage for melee & shooting profiles (was 1)
Particle Casters have 2 shots (was 1)
Lychguard — 3 attacks (was 2)
Spoiler:
Deathmarks
Spoiler:
Immortals
Spoiler:
Space Marines
Invictor Warsuit
Heavy Bolter changed to 1 shot with S5/AP-1/2D — unknown if this is going to be a new weapon, or an updated heavy bolter profile.
(Twin) Ironhail Heavy Stubbers listed as Heavy 8, S4/AP-1/1D (was Heavy 3 S4/AP-1/1D) — Most likely lists both stubbers shots combined for the condensed sheet, which sounds more reasonable.
Twin Ironhail Autocannon is S7/AP-2/2D (was S7/AP-1/2D)
Incendium Cannon is S6/AP-1/1D (was S5/AP-1/1D)
Spoiler:
Terminator Squad +1 wound, Chainfists are D3 damage, power fists flat 2 damage, power swords are S+1, heavy flamer is 12" range, Cyclone Launcher Frag Profile changed to 2d6 shots (was 2d3).
Spoiler:
Vanguard Veteran Squad +1 wound, 4 dmg Thunderhammer, Power Axe is S+2, Chainsword has AP-1
That Heavy Bolter change makes very little sense - it'd have to be a new weapon name for that profile. The "Invictor Heavy Bolt Pistol", perhaps?
In the case of the Ironhail Heavy Stubbers, isn't that for a pair of them, so we could halve the number of shots for a single? I don't have the 2.0 SM book, so I'm not sure how the Invictor (what is it with Primaris and the letter I?) is currently set up.
I had to do some digging for the old version but you're right about the ironhail stubbers, it lists them as Heavy 6, so it'd be more reasonable that the stubbers changed to 4 shots instead of 8 each.
I've no idea about the bolter pistol though, if the standard heavy bolter changed to 2D, it might explain the noticeable points increase it received across all the factions, but that would shake things up a bit.
Khorzain wrote: I had to do some digging for the old version but you're right about the ironhail stubbers, it lists them as Heavy 6, so it'd be more reasonable that the stubbers changed to 4 shots instead of 8 each.
I've no idea about the bolter pistol though, if the standard heavy bolter changed to 2D, it might explain the noticeable points increase it received across all the factions, but that would shake things up a bit.
Not if they're 1 shot like that one- that's a much worse weapon.
But it wouldn't explain the points increase, either, since the CA2020 value is for the current version of the HB. (heavy 3, damage 1, etc).
No one has mentioned it, but just FYI , the new datasheet format was mentioned in the PDF rules. Its the Condensed Datasheet, so they can stop printing multiple pages of translated sheets (and leave out rules text) in assembly guides. Expect it in every box going forward- only the actual codex/supplement will have full rules for units.
Actually I just watched a video of someone going through the old instruction booklet and it does list the stubbers as Heavy 3, but it shows the whole datasheet, so I don't know if the shots are being combined in this new one. And well, I guess if it is the Heavy Bolter, they can just say "we wrote it with 9th edition in mind", lol.
Khorzain wrote: I had to do some digging for the old version but you're right about the ironhail stubbers, it lists them as Heavy 6, so it'd be more reasonable that the stubbers changed to 4 shots instead of 8 each.
I've no idea about the bolter pistol though, if the standard heavy bolter changed to 2D, it might explain the noticeable points increase it received across all the factions, but that would shake things up a bit.
No it would not make sense because you would be paying overprice until codex comes where points change anyway. Any stuff in codex shouldn't affect points in CA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Khorzain wrote: Actually I just watched a video of someone going through the old instruction booklet and it does list the stubbers as Heavy 3, but it shows the whole datasheet, so I don't know if the shots are being combined in this new one.
And well, I guess if it is the Heavy Bolter, they can just say "we wrote it with 9th edition in mind", lol.
Or they want it to not just be heavy bolter now that the shoot in melee speciality is gone so it's new weapon altogether with cawlized name.
Oh good, just what we needed, buffs to the melon-fething invictor warsuit, everyone's favorite miserable to play against piece of trash that deploys 9" away from your lines, destroys twice its points value and then explodes dealing d6 mortal wounds to your whole army.
boy oh boy do I love games being decided by who wins the roll off for turn 1.
Probably, but realy to use an explosion icon to depict heavy weapons, instead of blast weapons is , at least to me, very counter intuitive. If blast ends up a bullseye or something that is easily mistood for a sniper or assault weapon, I am going to be in real trouble.
Karol wrote: Probably, but realy to use an explosion icon to depict heavy weapons, instead of blast weapons is , at least to me, very counter intuitive. If blast ends up a bullseye or something that is easily mistood for a sniper or assault weapon, I am going to be in real trouble.
I dont see any of the special rules on the instruction kit profile here. Like, the "explodes" rule or the "infiltrate" rule is nowhere. new profiles in codexes are probably going to look like this:
the_scotsman wrote:Oh good, just what we needed, buffs to the melon-fething invictor warsuit, everyone's favorite miserable to play against piece of trash that deploys 9" away from your lines, destroys twice its points value and then explodes dealing d6 mortal wounds to your whole army.
boy oh boy do I love games being decided by who wins the roll off for turn 1.
the_scotsman wrote:
You hope heavy bolters go to 1 shot D2?
That's....way way way worse than current heavy bolters, thoughh.
Karol wrote: Probably, but realy to use an explosion icon to depict heavy weapons, instead of blast weapons is , at least to me, very counter intuitive. If blast ends up a bullseye or something that is easily mistood for a sniper or assault weapon, I am going to be in real trouble.
There's no such thing as a "blast weapon". Blast is a special rule attached to weapons, not a type. You can have Heavy, Assault, etc. that all have Blast as a rule. Having a symbol for Blast wouldn't tell you what other rules affect the weapon.
ERJAK wrote: to me, the invictors new statline says no more combat doctrines, at least how they exist now.
why? Because they buffed the weapons on a space marine thing?
You think GW buffing some aspect of a space marine thing means they're going to nerf some other aspect? Boy oh boy do I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you my friend.
ERJAK wrote: to me, the invictors new statline says no more combat doctrines, at least how they exist now.
why? Because they buffed the weapons on a space marine thing?
You think GW buffing some aspect of a space marine thing means they're going to nerf some other aspect? Boy oh boy do I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you my friend.
They're not total idiots. They know that SM are the strongest army in the game right now and they know a lot of that is due to combat doctrines being wildly unfair. Doctrines are also solving a problem that doesn't exist anymore with the new detachment system. It makes perfect sense to just shelve doctrines and move some of their power onto the individual units to compensate.
Given that every other weapon profile on the datasheet has apparently been buffed, I thought the implication is pretty clear...
Well the main gun and the stubber were buffed, the melee weapon and grenade launcher are unchanged, and the pistol weapon was nerfed.
The overall change to the datasheet is
1) you got a buff to the main gun
2) 2 S5 Ap-1 D1 shots became 2 S4 Ap-1 D1 shots (wow such nerf very balance)
3) 1 S5 Ap-1 D1 shot became 1 S5 Ap-1 D2 shot
I dunno, looks like a buff to me to a unit that was already fething miserable to play against. I'd complain the same way if they buffed custode bike shield captains, or tau riptides+shield drones, or when they did buff eldar -5 to hit flyers with PA, or chaos discolords.
Certain units just suck ass to play against. Usually when you can't touch them, and they have the ability to remove tons and tons of models from the table every turn with basically no effort or before those models ever get to act. The fact that this thing mounts both anti-infantry and anti-tank weaponry and does most of its gak top of turn 1 before you've ever gotten to even move your models makes it among the worst offenders in the whole game.
There's a really good reason GW removed turn 1 deep strike from the game with a blowtorch. It made the game miserable to play. You could even ruin games with models that didn't hardly even do anything. I remember one game I played where I had a 5-man ranger squad back when they had marine scout deploy, and I got turn 1 and was able to Advance them up and just string in front of like 3 chaos rhinos and a bike squad, and it just completely ended the game. my opponent had absolutely no way to move his most critical units turn 1, and the game was completely one-sided from that point on. That was the first and only time I ever used rangers as long as they had that stupid, stupid deployment rule.
ERJAK wrote: to me, the invictors new statline says no more combat doctrines, at least how they exist now.
It is possible, the supplements aren't invalidated and they only refer to an additional bonus for being in X doctrine, it might be something far more mundane now rather than an AP buff.
The Ironhail Heavy Stubbers went from a total of 6 S4 AP-1 D1 shots (with 2 stubbers, the current profile) to a total of 8.
Since the heavy bolter went from 3 shots to 2, the overall effect is the same number of shots, but one of them became damage 2, and 2 of them dropped by 1 strength.
ERJAK wrote: to me, the invictors new statline says no more combat doctrines, at least how they exist now.
why? Because they buffed the weapons on a space marine thing?
You think GW buffing some aspect of a space marine thing means they're going to nerf some other aspect? Boy oh boy do I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you my friend.
Quit being dense. They're not total idiots. They know that SM are the strongest army in the game right now and they know a lot of that is due to combat doctrines being wildly unfair. Doctrines are also solving a problem that doesn't exist anymore with the new detachment system. It makes perfect sense to just shelve doctrines and move some of their power onto the individual units to compensate.
If you weren't so busy bitch moaning and feeling like a victim, it would have been obvious to you too.
I'm not convinced doctrines were for solving a detachment problem.
Their main purpose seemed to be giving marines a buff without touching the 'classic' stat line. I don't see that changing.
And the snapshots we're getting for Necrons suggest they are adjusting codexes upwards again, if they're doing that, I highly doubt they're going to take toys away from marines.
It actually seems more likely that these changes are in response to needing to fix doctrines to certain turns because they were initially more abusable than GW believed.
Yeah, they're also giving necrons special army-wide "dynastic codes" which you get 1 of just for playing necrons and 2 of for playing mono-dynasty necrons.
Bet you a shiny nickel those will be flat, army-wide special rules akin to the sisters of battle ones, intended to be equivalent to doctrines.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, they're also giving necrons special army-wide "dynastic codes" which you get 1 of just for playing necrons and 2 of for playing mono-dynasty necrons.
Bet you a shiny nickel those will be flat, army-wide special rules akin to the sisters of battle ones, intended to be equivalent to doctrines.
That wouldn’t be to bad at all, the sisters ones seem pretty good, not broken but a nice little boost for running mono faction.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, they're also giving necrons special army-wide "dynastic codes" which you get 1 of just for playing necrons and 2 of for playing mono-dynasty necrons.
Bet you a shiny nickel those will be flat, army-wide special rules akin to the sisters of battle ones, intended to be equivalent to doctrines.
That wouldn’t be to bad at all, the sisters ones seem pretty good, not broken but a nice little boost for running mono faction.
Yeah, Gw always either goes bonkers over the top crazy or super undershoots with their "new thing we want to try and then roll thru the codexes".
Combat Doctrines are looking more like a "6th ed Valkyrie/Heldrake/Night Scythe" or a "7th ed decurion" then they are a "7th ed first few formations" or a "8th ed Marine/CSM/Admech/Eldar chapter tactics"
then they forget about it for the rest of the edition and just leave the players to deal with their mistake.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, they're also giving necrons special army-wide "dynastic codes" which you get 1 of just for playing necrons and 2 of for playing mono-dynasty necrons.
Bet you a shiny nickel those will be flat, army-wide special rules akin to the sisters of battle ones, intended to be equivalent to doctrines.
That wouldn’t be to bad at all, the sisters ones seem pretty good, not broken but a nice little boost for running mono faction.
Yeah, Gw always either goes bonkers over the top crazy or super undershoots with their "new thing we want to try and then roll thru the codexes".
Combat Doctrines are looking more like a "6th ed Valkyrie/Heldrake/Night Scythe" or a "7th ed decurion" then they are a "7th ed first few formations" or a "8th ed Marine/CSM/Admech/Eldar chapter tactics"
then they forget about it for the rest of the edition and just leave the players to deal with their mistake.
After the nerfs the basic doctrines aren’t to bad a bonus to ap for various weapons that changes each turn is nice, now they just need to reign in some of the super doctrines a bit. The BA one adding 1 extra attack on the first turn of close combat turn 3 and on is neat but rarely do I actually get to make use of it, as the melee units are dead or the opponent is. Some of the other chapters super doctrines are way to good.
I think scrapping the doctrines and rolling some of the bonuses into a 1 use stratagem or stratagems might be better, you pay x CP to activate a doctrine for 1 turn and can’t use it more than once(maybe just make it a single strat so you only get 1 doctrine for 1 turn and no more), then give the various chapters something closer to on par with the sisters bonuses where you can pick one small buff or 2 if you roll(could have some unique ones for more unique chapters like BA, SW, and DA.
the_scotsman wrote: Oh good, just what we needed, buffs to the melon-fething invictor warsuit, everyone's favorite miserable to play against piece of trash that deploys 9" away from your lines, destroys twice its points value and then explodes dealing d6 mortal wounds to your whole army.
boy oh boy do I love games being decided by who wins the roll off for turn 1.
Two of them sound awesome as an addition to my new Eradicators, Outriders and Bladegaurd Veterans. I have to make a few calls now with GT organisers, as they can save themselves the hussle this year and simply declare me the winner. As nobody could possible every win against Marines, right?
Hyperbole much? The warsuit is a good unit, but really not at all like you try to make it out to be, even with the buffs.
the_scotsman wrote: Oh good, just what we needed, buffs to the melon-fething invictor warsuit, everyone's favorite miserable to play against piece of trash that deploys 9" away from your lines, destroys twice its points value and then explodes dealing d6 mortal wounds to your whole army.
boy oh boy do I love games being decided by who wins the roll off for turn 1.
Two of them sound awesome as an addition to my new Eradicators, Outriders and Bladegaurd Veterans. I have to make a few calls now with GT organisers, as they can save themselves the hussle this year and simply declare me the winner. As nobody could possible every win against Marines, right?
Hyperbole much? The warsuit is a good unit, but really not at all like you try to make it out to be, even with the buffs.
I run 3 because if I don’t go first I usually lose 1 to 2 in my opponents first turn, this may change a little with the new terrain rules.
The Invader datasheet was leaked, and Multimeltas appear to have gone up to Heavy 2. The half range ability was changed to D6+2 damage instead of roll twice/take better.
With the rules change I’m going to have to consider picking up one or two of the new primaris razorbacks with the close range anti tank load out, twin las talon and what looks like 2 multimeltas.
I would hope that if the new codex doesn't drastically alter doctrines (or standstill and fire twice) that event organizers start doing something to address the imbalance.
Heavy 6 AC? Heavy 4 lascannon? On a platform that is probably 80-100 points based on the PL?
The real kick in the teeth will be when there's not another day 1 patch FAQ to give chaos, guard, sisters, etc heavy 2 multimeltas.
The firestrike turret with Las option is 130 or 140pts (its in manual), thats pretty pricey for such an easy kill. Hits like a truck, but easy to take out.
what's interesting to me is that the new melta rule (the damage +2 thing) is not on the eradicator datasheet. They have the usual, half range, roll twice rule.
If they were planning on +2 damage being the new core rule, why wouldn't they change it for eradicators?
and if those datasheets are just "filler" and the core changes are coming in the new 'dex, then why would Storm Shields be changed in the new datasheets? Why not just leave off all changes to the codex?
the_scotsman wrote: what's interesting to me is that the new melta rule (the damage +2 thing) is not on the eradicator datasheet. They have the usual, half range, roll twice rule.
If they were planning on +2 damage being the new core rule, why wouldn't they change it for eradicators?
and if those datasheets are just "filler" and the core changes are coming in the new 'dex, then why would Storm Shields be changed in the new datasheets? Why not just leave off all changes to the codex?
Seems pretty GW to not have any consistency with this sort of thing. They probably were printed at different deadlines and they changed stuff in between or the intern that does the pack-in pamphlet datasheets just used the wrong one "Is it 'Invictor 9.0v2v4 (latest)" or is it 'Invictor 9.1v1v3'?" situation
the_scotsman wrote: what's interesting to me is that the new melta rule (the damage +2 thing) is not on the eradicator datasheet. They have the usual, half range, roll twice rule.
If they were planning on +2 damage being the new core rule, why wouldn't they change it for eradicators?
and if those datasheets are just "filler" and the core changes are coming in the new 'dex, then why would Storm Shields be changed in the new datasheets? Why not just leave off all changes to the codex?
Seems pretty GW to not have any consistency with this sort of thing. They probably were printed at different deadlines and they changed stuff in between or the intern that does the pack-in pamphlet datasheets just used the wrong one "Is it 'Invictor 9.0v2v4 (latest)" or is it 'Invictor 9.1v1v3'?" situation
Oh, if ONLY we had some kind of universal, game-wide change method we could use to take these shared profiles and update them all at once, across all factions.
Would that we could do that sort of thing during an edition change, but alas, we have so many OTHER things we need to do then, like interpreting the pattern of gak our caged chimpanzee throws at the wall to determine the new points values of everything! We also have to hit ourselves repeatedly on the head so we avoid remembering any lessons we learned over the course of the previous edition.
the_scotsman wrote: what's interesting to me is that the new melta rule (the damage +2 thing) is not on the eradicator datasheet. They have the usual, half range, roll twice rule.
If they were planning on +2 damage being the new core rule, why wouldn't they change it for eradicators?
and if those datasheets are just "filler" and the core changes are coming in the new 'dex, then why would Storm Shields be changed in the new datasheets? Why not just leave off all changes to the codex?
Good point - maybe they figured they were already overpowered and decided to give them lesser versions
the_scotsman wrote: what's interesting to me is that the new melta rule (the damage +2 thing) is not on the eradicator datasheet. They have the usual, half range, roll twice rule.
If they were planning on +2 damage being the new core rule, why wouldn't they change it for eradicators?
and if those datasheets are just "filler" and the core changes are coming in the new 'dex, then why would Storm Shields be changed in the new datasheets? Why not just leave off all changes to the codex?
I'm beginning to wonder if they aren't from a draft version of Edge of Silence (the pamphlet in Indomitus). The format is very similar, down to the picture and quote in the sidebar.
It would also explain why these things all have points at the back of CA2020 as well.
No idea why they don't have any special rules though (beyond 'its a draft version). The Invader should at least have Angels of Death, since its a Biker unit.
Insectum7 wrote: Time to bust out my Multimelta Devastator bits, finish my Attack Bikes and re-equip my Land Speeders for 2 shot Multimeltas.
Can I still put two Multimeltas on my Land Speeders using the Index? I'm going to assume I can't.
I'd suggest waiting. This changes nothing for any other multimelta.
Says "Multimelta", not Heavy Onslaught MacroMultiMelta or anything. If the points leaks were right and the Lascannon was 15 while the Multimelta is 20, this would be a good reason.
ERJAK wrote: to me, the invictors new statline says no more combat doctrines, at least how they exist now.
why? Because they buffed the weapons on a space marine thing?
You think GW buffing some aspect of a space marine thing means they're going to nerf some other aspect? Boy oh boy do I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you my friend.
And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!
And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!
At least in this case the Multimelta was rarely picked as a weapon choice, and is shared by armies other than Space Marines. Like a Demolisher with Multimelta sponsons becomes a total beast at 24" range, and Sisters get a big extra punch for their Retributors. And Land Speeders. When is the last time you saw a Land Speeder? An extra Multimelta shot on a platform that now doesn't have a -1 penalty for moving is sweet.
Insectum7 wrote: Time to bust out my Multimelta Devastator bits, finish my Attack Bikes and re-equip my Land Speeders for 2 shot Multimeltas.
Can I still put two Multimeltas on my Land Speeders using the Index? I'm going to assume I can't.
I'd suggest waiting. This changes nothing for any other multimelta.
Says "Multimelta", not Heavy Onslaught MacroMultiMelta or anything.
Quite true. But that doesn't actually matter. You use the weapon on your datasheet, not a different datasheet. There is no rulebook rule, FAQ, update or anything else to even suggest otherwise.
Its no different than the different weapons that are already in the game, specifically that some meltaguns say that you discard the lowest roll, others say that you discard one of your choice (when rolling two dice for being in half range)
Or even the plasma weapons that outright destroy the bearer or the other plasma weapons that say the bearer suffers 1 MW. And those happen within the same books.
'Future proofing' the point costs makes zero sense. You still use the printed rules as is. FAQs are out and done. If they wanted to change the weapon profiles, they would have done it, same way they did for updating the various demolisher cannons to the same rules for everyone.
At some point they could change them (for everyone, or not). But until they do, the current rules (in the relevant codex or PA or whatever) are the only correct ones.
Insectum7 wrote: Time to bust out my Multimelta Devastator bits, finish my Attack Bikes and re-equip my Land Speeders for 2 shot Multimeltas.
Can I still put two Multimeltas on my Land Speeders using the Index? I'm going to assume I can't.
I'd suggest waiting. This changes nothing for any other multimelta.
Says "Multimelta", not Heavy Onslaught MacroMultiMelta or anything.
Quite true. But that doesn't actually matter. You use the weapon on your datasheet, not a different datasheet. There is no rulebook rule, FAQ, update or anything else to even suggest otherwise.
Its no different than the different weapons that are already in the game, specifically that some meltaguns say that you discard the lowest roll, others say that you discard one of your choice (when rolling two dice for being in half range)
Or even the plasma weapons that either outright destroy the bearer or the other plasma weapons that say the bearer suffers 1 MW. And those happen within the same books.
^Fair points, but I don't think it'll play out like that. I'm going to be bullish on MMs and shuffle my painting priorities around to get them done sooner rather than later.
Insectum7 wrote: Time to bust out my Multimelta Devastator bits, finish my Attack Bikes and re-equip my Land Speeders for 2 shot Multimeltas.
Can I still put two Multimeltas on my Land Speeders using the Index? I'm going to assume I can't.
I'd suggest waiting. This changes nothing for any other multimelta.
Says "Multimelta", not Heavy Onslaught MacroMultiMelta or anything.
Quite true. But that doesn't actually matter. You use the weapon on your datasheet, not a different datasheet. There is no rulebook rule, FAQ, update or anything else to even suggest otherwise.
Its no different than the different weapons that are already in the game, specifically that some meltaguns say that you discard the lowest roll, others say that you discard one of your choice (when rolling two dice for being in half range)
Or even the plasma weapons that outright destroy the bearer or the other plasma weapons that say the bearer suffers 1 MW. And those happen within the same books.
'Future proofing' the point costs makes zero sense. You still use the printed rules as is. FAQs are out and done. If they wanted to change the weapon profiles, they would have done it, same way they did for updating the various demolisher cannons to the same rules for everyone.
Maybe they hadn't finished the weapon profile faqs? Maybe they're waiting for the first codex before changing everyone's crap. Maybe the app is needed to be at a certain milestone to facilitate rolling out the changes. There are many reasons chapter approved may have been done before they updated weapons. The app not being ready to have updated profiles may have been the big one.
Or even the plasma weapons that outright destroy the bearer or the other plasma weapons that say the bearer suffers 1 MW. And those happen within the same books.
The Plasma weapons with that difference are actually named differently, iirc. For example theres a Plasma Cannon for the infantry models which slays the model outright, and the Heavy Plasma Cannon which is exactly the same except it does one MW, and is the option available to vehicles.
And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!
At least in this case the Multimelta was rarely picked as a weapon choice, and is shared by armies other than Space Marines. Like a Demolisher with Multimelta sponsons becomes a total beast at 24" range, and Sisters get a big extra punch for their Retributors. And Land Speeders. When is the last time you saw a Land Speeder? An extra Multimelta shot on a platform that now doesn't have a -1 penalty for moving is sweet.
The MM changes are good, but I was mocking the changes to the Invictor in that post.
And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!
At least in this case the Multimelta was rarely picked as a weapon choice, and is shared by armies other than Space Marines. Like a Demolisher with Multimelta sponsons becomes a total beast at 24" range, and Sisters get a big extra punch for their Retributors. And Land Speeders. When is the last time you saw a Land Speeder? An extra Multimelta shot on a platform that now doesn't have a -1 penalty for moving is sweet.
The MM changes are good, but I was mocking the changes to the Invictor in that post.
And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!
At least in this case the Multimelta was rarely picked as a weapon choice, and is shared by armies other than Space Marines. Like a Demolisher with Multimelta sponsons becomes a total beast at 24" range, and Sisters get a big extra punch for their Retributors. And Land Speeders. When is the last time you saw a Land Speeder? An extra Multimelta shot on a platform that now doesn't have a -1 penalty for moving is sweet.
You assume they get it. Point of bespoke rules is every datasheet can be unique.
Imperium now has 3 differently working multi melta. Well necrons are happy that this melta effect is worse. Too bad not universal melta effect
You assume they get it. Point of bespoke rules is every datasheet can be unique.
I am assuming that, yes. Like I said, I'm going to be bullish on Multimeltas. There are times when GW is sloppy about this sort of thing, but I don't think they'll be so sloppy in this case.
tneva82 wrote: Imperium now has 3 differently working multi melta.
We've got the Mario Kart Multimelta, and the default Multimelta - where's the third one? And is it also just called "Multimelta", or does it have a variant name on the profile?
Actually screw being measured. I wait with baited breath for the codex, but I'm afraid every Marine release seems to induce a "NO, NO, NOOOOO" response from me.
Its just obscene and I hate it.
It just feels like GW is doing this "look, it has to be top 10% or no one will buy it, make it good".
And then you compare to the Necron stuff and its "meh, anyone playing Necrons is probably doing it because they like the models or fluff. Who cares on the rules?"
Comparing the Heavy Lokhust to the ATV, which presumably are around the same points, is just like two different games.
Seeing the rules previews so far utterly kills my hope that GW realized there is a rules imbalance and was planning to bring Necrons up to the level of Marines. I can't see RP and dynasty traits elevating the Necron datasheets to what the Marine ones do with doctrines, super-doctrines, and chapter traits.
And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!
At least in this case the Multimelta was rarely picked as a weapon choice, and is shared by armies other than Space Marines. Like a Demolisher with Multimelta sponsons becomes a total beast at 24" range, and Sisters get a big extra punch for their Retributors. And Land Speeders. When is the last time you saw a Land Speeder? An extra Multimelta shot on a platform that now doesn't have a -1 penalty for moving is sweet.
Sisters might be getting TOO big of a punch with this. With MD and Storm of Fire, it;'s trivial to guarantee 27 damage on 3 failed saves for SoB retributors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: Seeing the rules previews so far utterly kills my hope that GW realized there is a rules imbalance and was planning to bring Necrons up to the level of Marines. I can't see RP and dynasty traits elevating the Necron datasheets to what the Marine ones do with doctrines, super-doctrines, and chapter traits.
What if they remove doctrines and super doctrines?
Tyel wrote: Actually screw being measured. I wait with baited breath for the codex, but I'm afraid every Marine release seems to induce a "NO, NO, NOOOOO" response from me.
Its just obscene and I hate it.
It just feels like GW is doing this "look, it has to be top 10% or no one will buy it, make it good".
And then you compare to the Necron stuff and its "meh, anyone playing Necrons is probably doing it because they like the models or fluff. Who cares on the rules?"
Comparing the Heavy Lokhust to the ATV, which presumably are around the same points, is just like two different games.
70 vs 80 (85 for the MM version). The points for these are in the back of CA2020.
Voss wrote: 70 vs 80 (85 for the MM version). The points for these are in the back of CA2020.
I guess my hope is that these are all sort of weird placeholders they threw together for Indomitus, and there will be a proper review and change in October with the codexes.
Tyel wrote: Actually screw being measured. I wait with baited breath for the codex, but I'm afraid every Marine release seems to induce a "NO, NO, NOOOOO" response from me.
Its just obscene and I hate it.
It just feels like GW is doing this "look, it has to be top 10% or no one will buy it, make it good".
And then you compare to the Necron stuff and its "meh, anyone playing Necrons is probably doing it because they like the models or fluff. Who cares on the rules?"
Comparing the Heavy Lokhust to the ATV, which presumably are around the same points, is just like two different games.
To be fair to them, with this community its branded a trash paperweight unless it wins tourneys singlehandedly, so you're maybe not far off the money.
the_scotsman wrote: what's interesting to me is that the new melta rule (the damage +2 thing) is not on the eradicator datasheet. They have the usual, half range, roll twice rule.
If they were planning on +2 damage being the new core rule, why wouldn't they change it for eradicators?
and if those datasheets are just "filler" and the core changes are coming in the new 'dex, then why would Storm Shields be changed in the new datasheets? Why not just leave off all changes to the codex?
Good point - maybe they figured they were already overpowered and decided to give them lesser versions
or maybe they wanted to make sure multimelta's still had a place, I mean with these rules a multi melta devestator squad is still going to have a place on the battlefield.
Daedalus81 wrote: Soooo....who wants to do retributors vs eradicators with these MM in their hands?
Eradicators don't have a penalty for moving and firing, and are way tougher, for starters. I don't know the Retributor cost, but a Devastator is 35 to the Eradicator 40.
the_scotsman wrote: what's interesting to me is that the new melta rule (the damage +2 thing) is not on the eradicator datasheet. They have the usual, half range, roll twice rule.
If they were planning on +2 damage being the new core rule, why wouldn't they change it for eradicators?
and if those datasheets are just "filler" and the core changes are coming in the new 'dex, then why would Storm Shields be changed in the new datasheets? Why not just leave off all changes to the codex?
Good point - maybe they figured they were already overpowered and decided to give them lesser versions
or maybe they wanted to make sure multimelta's still had a place, I mean with these rules a multi melta devestator squad is still going to have a place on the battlefield.
Prior to this, the idea that anyone would voluntarily take any variety of multimelta on anything at 20/25/50 was frankly laughable. Even SoB, who don't really have any other options weren't even considering multimeltas.
1. That new datasheets will have minimal special rules (if any).
2. That these are just the "in box" datasheets to get people started, and that the full rules will still require the Codex.
I could see GW doing either. Or both (somehow...).
Daedalus81 wrote: Soooo....who wants to do retributors vs eradicators with these MM in their hands?
Eradicators don't have a penalty for moving and firing, and are way tougher, for starters. I don't know the Retributor cost, but a Devastator is 35 to the Eradicator 40.
Retributors don't have a penalty for moving and firing. One retributor to one eradicator works out in the eradicators favor.
A unit of retributors, who have 12 shots the first time they fire with armorium cherubs, at 36" range+1 damage with storm of fire, with miracle dice guaranteeing at least 2 high rolls on a damage chart...
Daedalus81 wrote: Soooo....who wants to do retributors vs eradicators with these MM in their hands?
Eradicators don't have a penalty for moving and firing, and are way tougher, for starters. I don't know the Retributor cost, but a Devastator is 35 to the Eradicator 40.
Tougher on a model basis, not necessarily a squad/firepower loss basis. Although I may not even bother paying for the additional bodies and just use it as drop pod suicide squad ALA GravDevs. As salamanders I can pop the 1 cp strat for them to ignore the move penalty. So they drop down and pop off 8 shots, even losing the reroll to hit they're still getting 5 or so hits, and those hits in 12" range are going to hurt. With a +1 to wound from the super doctrine and the reroll to wound that squad is going to chunk anything that isn't a knight, and even then they'll still most likely bracket it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Forgive me, where's the 36" range coming from?
It might be 30, I don't remember exactly but the SoB strat storm of fire adds range to multimelta shots(pretty sure it was 12 but might be 6) as well as +1 damage.
That's ignoring the fact that you can also have them advance and fire without penalty in argent shroud, so 42+d6" threat range.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Forgive me, where's the 36" range coming from?
It might be 30, I don't remember exactly but the SoB strat storm of fire adds range to multimelta shots(pretty sure it was 12 but might be 6) as well as +1 damage.
That's ignoring the fact that you can also have them advance and fire without penalty in argent shroud, so 42+d6" threat range.
Granted you are paying 2cp for that +12 range and +1 damage, and its not like your always going to have a 6 miracle dice on hand to guarantee 9 damage at half range
H.B.M.C. wrote: Forgive me, where's the 36" range coming from?
It might be 30, I don't remember exactly but the SoB strat storm of fire adds range to multimelta shots(pretty sure it was 12 but might be 6) as well as +1 damage.
That's ignoring the fact that you can also have them advance and fire without penalty in argent shroud, so 42+d6" threat range.
Granted you are paying 2cp for that +12 range and +1 damage, and its not like your always going to have a 6 miracle dice on hand to guarantee 9 damage at half range
If you have a triumph of saint katherine and litanies, you have a really good shot at 4s and 5s which the triumph can boost.
Also, the triumph+simulacrum imperialis+your once per phase can guarantee 3 dice. It's probably not OP but it's a spicy way to blow up a knight in one shot.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Forgive me, where's the 36" range coming from?
It might be 30, I don't remember exactly but the SoB strat storm of fire adds range to multimelta shots(pretty sure it was 12 but might be 6) as well as +1 damage.
That's ignoring the fact that you can also have them advance and fire without penalty in argent shroud, so 42+d6" threat range.
Granted you are paying 2cp for that +12 range and +1 damage, and its not like your always going to have a 6 miracle dice on hand to guarantee 9 damage at half range
but...but...the math says its possible so one has to be better and the other completely useless.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Forgive me, where's the 36" range coming from?
It might be 30, I don't remember exactly but the SoB strat storm of fire adds range to multimelta shots(pretty sure it was 12 but might be 6) as well as +1 damage.
That's ignoring the fact that you can also have them advance and fire without penalty in argent shroud, so 42+d6" threat range.
Granted you are paying 2cp for that +12 range and +1 damage, and its not like your always going to have a 6 miracle dice on hand to guarantee 9 damage at half range
but...but...the math says its possible so one has to be better and the other completely useless.
You're reaching so hard here it's painful to watch. You should have saved that for a more appropriate exchange.
1. That new datasheets will have minimal special rules (if any).
2. That these are just the "in box" datasheets to get people started, and that the full rules will still require the Codex.
3. They ordered the dude who did Warcry layout to redesign 40K too and now the rules will be in card packs staying in inventory roughly 12 nanoseconds
H.B.M.C. wrote: Forgive me, where's the 36" range coming from?
It might be 30, I don't remember exactly but the SoB strat storm of fire adds range to multimelta shots(pretty sure it was 12 but might be 6) as well as +1 damage.
That's ignoring the fact that you can also have them advance and fire without penalty in argent shroud, so 42+d6" threat range.
Granted you are paying 2cp for that +12 range and +1 damage, and its not like your always going to have a 6 miracle dice on hand to guarantee 9 damage at half range
but...but...the math says its possible so one has to be better and the other completely useless.
You're reaching so hard here it's painful to watch. You should have saved that for a more appropriate exchange.
It's just lame how binary some people are. it's either the bestest mostest OPest or it's a waste of energy to even consider it. there is soooo much more to the game. It's not reaching...if its true.
I still cant believe the scaffolding with a nig gun can move.. granted its 3" but why...
And personally I wouldn't put any weight to any of these data sheets until codexes are released. If there is anything GW is consistent about is being inconsistent..*
*And ensuring marines get the bestest greatest and most powerful shiny new toys all of the time
Argive wrote: I still cant believe the scaffolding with a gun can move.. granted its 3" but why...
I assumed it was a nod to the original Tarantula. Not the FW version, but the old Rogue Trader version with the cross-pattern feet. It moved on suspensors.
I'm honestly surprised this is so slow. The Tarantula had a Move of 6.
And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!
At least in this case the Multimelta was rarely picked as a weapon choice, and is shared by armies other than Space Marines. Like a Demolisher with Multimelta sponsons becomes a total beast at 24" range, and Sisters get a big extra punch for their Retributors. And Land Speeders. When is the last time you saw a Land Speeder? An extra Multimelta shot on a platform that now doesn't have a -1 penalty for moving is sweet.
Aye, I think it might be time to bring my Hellforged Land Raider Achilles out of retirement. 8 STR8, -4AP, d6DMG shots + 2D3 LOS ignoring MW dealing shots wrapped up in a T8, 2+, 4++, 19 wound package sounds pretty good. Not to mention whatever I decide to load into it.....
Sorry but
They aren't really lascannons as they have 24" range
They can move
They are actually BS 2+, so better than marine accuracy!
They'd have a hell of a time on mission 23 where no mans land is 28". How would they even deal with obscuring terrain? They'd never be able to move fast enough for it to matter. These are cheap lane covering turrets, but I don't expect they'll change much other than being an easier target than a unit of eradicators.
And Land Speeders. When is the last time you saw a Land Speeder? An extra Multimelta shot on a platform that now doesn't have a -1 penalty for moving is sweet.
90 points for a speed with a MM and AC (so 5 more). That gives the speeder better shooting than the ATV for 2 less wounds, but 2 to 6" more movement and fly. Seems like a pretty decent set of trade-offs...barring a special rule for ATVs.
Obscuring terrain is good for those turrets. Start the turret behind obscuring terrain to defend an area. It can move it's 3" into the terrain and fire freely out of it.
And Land Speeders. When is the last time you saw a Land Speeder? An extra Multimelta shot on a platform that now doesn't have a -1 penalty for moving is sweet.
90 points for a speed with a MM and AC (so 5 more). That gives the speeder better shooting than the ATV for 2 less wounds, but 2 to 6" more movement and fly. Seems like a pretty decent set of trade-offs...barring a special rule for ATVs.
Do you really think there's a chance it won't get one? How else are they going to sell that godawful thing?
And Land Speeders. When is the last time you saw a Land Speeder? An extra Multimelta shot on a platform that now doesn't have a -1 penalty for moving is sweet.
90 points for a speed with a MM and AC (so 5 more). That gives the speeder better shooting than the ATV for 2 less wounds, but 2 to 6" more movement and fly. Seems like a pretty decent set of trade-offs...barring a special rule for ATVs.
Do you really think there's a chance it won't get one? How else are they going to sell that godawful thing?
I think if it didn't have some fancy rule it would be the odd unit out of the Primaris bunch.
Insectum7 wrote: Obscuring terrain is good for those turrets. Start the turret behind obscuring terrain to defend an area. It can move it's 3" into the terrain and fire freely out of it.
Presuming there is no other terrain in its firing path and that it can deploy near such terrain. And regular LOS will still apply.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Do you really think there's a chance it won't get one? How else are they going to sell that godawful thing?
Really cool VROOM noises? Scrapjets are 110 and T6 W9 4+ with 2D3 +1 Rokkit shots. The scrapjet scores 1.94 hits and has much better melee where this thing gets 1.33. Seems pretty reasonable.
Insectum7 wrote: Obscuring terrain is good for those turrets. Start the turret behind obscuring terrain to defend an area. It can move it's 3" into the terrain and fire freely out of it.
Presuming there is no other terrain in its firing path and that it can deploy near such terrain. And regular LOS will still apply.
3" movement is generally enough to clear most LOS issues when pushing through the GW ruins I commonly see. If you're having trouble finding terrain to get it behind I'd say you're probably not playing with enough quality terrain.
For offense, holding a couple in Reserve and "surprising" the opponent with it's 3" move from nowhere onto a flank with four Lascannons into that sector of the table seems totally viable.
Insectum7 wrote: 3" movement is generally enough to clear most LOS issues when pushing through the GW ruins I commonly see. If you're having trouble finding terrain to get it behind I'd say you're probably not playing with enough quality terrain.
For offense, holding a couple in Reserve and "surprising" the opponent with it's 3" move from nowhere onto a flank with four Lascannons into that sector of the table seems totally viable.
Well, specifically obscuring. We have tons o' junk on the table. They're still a useful unit. They're just not going to be as flexible as people might think. The AC may see more use, I think with other units picking up the straight AT role.
They are cheap firepower, but barring some special rules they come with some significant drawbacks.
Slow.
They cannot hurt anything 27" away.
Fragile. Really fragile for that cost. The TFC gets away with it thanks to range and no LoS shooting, but this thing is too easy to kill.
Spoletta wrote: They are cheap firepower, but barring some special rules they come with some significant drawbacks.
Slow.
They cannot hurt anything 27" away.
Fragile. Really fragile for that cost. The TFC gets away with it thanks to range and no LoS shooting, but this thing is too easy to kill.
Well, you could reframe that another way and call it a pair of Eradicators with a slower move, BS 2+and 1 less wound.
I'm curious to know what the point cost for them is.
Lol you can take em in squads of three, I just noticed that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: I wonder if melta guns will move to 24" with 1 shot.
Daedalus81 wrote: I wonder if melta guns will move to 24" with 1 shot.
Then it would be the Eradicator Melta Rifle.
so? explain to me how rifling would double the range of a concentrated microwave beam.
i doubt the meltagun will see a range increase, but my sisters would love it, and hopefully the multi-melta changes gets rolled out to everyone and their xenos equivalents.
Daedalus81 wrote: I wonder if melta guns will move to 24" with 1 shot.
Then it would be the Eradicator Melta Rifle.
so? explain to me how rifling would double the range of a concentrated microwave beam.
i doubt the meltagun will see a range increase, but my sisters would love it, and hopefully the multi-melta changes gets rolled out to everyone and their xenos equivalents.
Hmm, well, he's right. They have a distinction for a reason. Maybe 18" melta guns. That would make them a little more useful, but still avoid creating murder mobs of scions.
Daedalus81 wrote: I wonder if melta guns will move to 24" with 1 shot.
Then it would be the Eradicator Melta Rifle.
so? explain to me how rifling would double the range of a concentrated microwave beam.
It's not about physics, it's about naming the thing something different because it has different in-game stats, same as the 20 different Bolter variations.
I agree it'd be nice if the Meltagun got more range, but I find it very unlikely that they'd make it the same weapon as their new fancy Primaris release with it's own new name.
catbarf wrote: Seeing the rules previews so far utterly kills my hope that GW realized there is a rules imbalance and was planning to bring Necrons up to the level of Marines. I can't see RP and dynasty traits elevating the Necron datasheets to what the Marine ones do with doctrines, super-doctrines, and chapter traits.
Just remember. Marines are master faction, rest are npc. Marines are supposed to stomp so timmy-12yo's can be heroes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Soooo....who wants to do retributors vs eradicators with these MM in their hands?
Seeing rets don't have these nor are sure to get them bit pointless. Nor we know price increase were they get them in decade or so with new codex
catbarf wrote: Seeing the rules previews so far utterly kills my hope that GW realized there is a rules imbalance and was planning to bring Necrons up to the level of Marines. I can't see RP and dynasty traits elevating the Necron datasheets to what the Marine ones do with doctrines, super-doctrines, and chapter traits.
Just remember. Marines are master faction, rest are npc. Marines are supposed to stomp so timmy-12yo's can be heroes.
I shall take joyous refuge by roflstomping lil Timmy's Pwimawis with my filthy xenos and classic marines.
90 points for a speed with a MM and AC (so 5 more). That gives the speeder better shooting than the ATV for 2 less wounds, but 2 to 6" more movement and fly. Seems like a pretty decent set of trade-offs...barring a special rule for ATVs.
Just curious Daedalus, where did you find the point-costs for the ATV?
90 points for a speed with a MM and AC (so 5 more). That gives the speeder better shooting than the ATV for 2 less wounds, but 2 to 6" more movement and fly. Seems like a pretty decent set of trade-offs...barring a special rule for ATVs.
Just curious Daedalus, where did you find the point-costs for the ATV?
IIRC, it's in the Indomitus points section of CA20.
Daedalus81 wrote: I wonder if melta guns will move to 24" with 1 shot.
Then it would be the Eradicator Melta Rifle.
so? explain to me how rifling would double the range of a concentrated microwave beam.
It's not about physics, it's about naming the thing something different because it has different in-game stats, same as the 20 different Bolter variations.
yes and no, using a specific name gives the specific meaning to a weapon
if the gun is named Bolt-Carbine but get Sniper rules makes no sense
Same as having a short range Melta-Gun and a long range Melta-Rifle
if the Leman Russ Battle Cannon would be called LR Coil Cannon it would make much more sense (at least with the current model)
Naming is very important and connected to physics, just using a radnom name that sounds cool because you need 20 different ones for the same weapon only kills of immersion and nothing else
You assume they get it. Point of bespoke rules is every datasheet can be unique.
I am assuming that, yes. Like I said, I'm going to be bullish on Multimeltas. There are times when GW is sloppy about this sort of thing, but I don't think they'll be so sloppy in this case.
A million dollars (pinky to lip) says that all marines get the upgraded MMs and upgraded melta rule on all their stuff and everyone else including CSM does not get it.
You assume they get it. Point of bespoke rules is every datasheet can be unique.
I am assuming that, yes. Like I said, I'm going to be bullish on Multimeltas. There are times when GW is sloppy about this sort of thing, but I don't think they'll be so sloppy in this case.
A million dollars (pinky to lip) says that all marines get the upgraded MMs and upgraded melta rule on all their stuff and everyone else including CSM does not get it.
Really think the more probable outcome is that in the codex the gun is changed to a "Melty McMeltyface auto-melt rifle" and everyone else stays the same.
I mean its the usual balance issues all the way down. If all MMs are suddenly 2 shots then Lascannons *suck*. I think people falling over themselves to throw MMs onto anything that moves may be disappointed.
Daedalus81 wrote: I wonder if melta guns will move to 24" with 1 shot.
Then it would be the Eradicator Melta Rifle.
so? explain to me how rifling would double the range of a concentrated microwave beam.
It's not about physics, it's about naming the thing something different because it has different in-game stats, same as the 20 different Bolter variations.
yes and no, using a specific name gives the specific meaning to a weapon
if the gun is named Bolt-Carbine but get Sniper rules makes no sense
Same as having a short range Melta-Gun and a long range Melta-Rifle
if the Leman Russ Battle Cannon would be called LR Coil Cannon it would make much more sense (at least with the current model)
Naming is very important and connected to physics, just using a radnom name that sounds cool because you need 20 different ones for the same weapon only kills of immersion and nothing else
but if there is a Melta Carbine, a Melta Rifle and a Melta Cannon and the differenc is the range it is something different than having a Melta Gun, Melta Rifle and Multi-Melta.
as with the first it indicates different sizes of the Melta weapon, with the later it would be that the Rifle indicates something special that rifles have over a gun
Daedalus81 wrote: I wonder if melta guns will move to 24" with 1 shot.
Then it would be the Eradicator Melta Rifle.
so? explain to me how rifling would double the range of a concentrated microwave beam.
It's not about physics, it's about naming the thing something different because it has different in-game stats, same as the 20 different Bolter variations.
yes and no, using a specific name gives the specific meaning to a weapon
if the gun is named Bolt-Carbine but get Sniper rules makes no sense
Same as having a short range Melta-Gun and a long range Melta-Rifle
if the Leman Russ Battle Cannon would be called LR Coil Cannon it would make much more sense (at least with the current model)
Naming is very important and connected to physics, just using a radnom name that sounds cool because you need 20 different ones for the same weapon only kills of immersion and nothing else
Naming of weapons is not inherently linked to physics. Just look at grenades (named after fruit).
The carbine thing is an oddity. Carbines wouldn't be inherently suited to sniping, though sniping shots can and have been made with guns not particularly suited to the task. For verisimilitude, the rule would make more sense to be on the unit rather than the gun, though I'm not aware of any carbines with sniping rules used by units that can take weapons that lack the same rule, so it makes no practical difference.
The rifle gripe is pedantry. While "rifle" technically refers to a gun with a rifled barrel, it is used frequently (and even officially) to refer to guns with no actual rifling. Just as a couple examples, recoilless guns are generally referred to as recoilless rifles even when smoothbore (and in some cases are officially named "rifles" even when smothebore), and the PHASR has "rifle" right in the name, despite not firing a projectile at all. Fictional shoulder fired energy weapons are very frequently referred to as "rifles", and it would not be unprecedented for a term's meaning to expand beyond the original technical definition. It would be pretty reasonable for such a weapon to be referred to as a "rifle" in real life. Might as well complain about the name of the lasgun since it doesn't actually fire a projectile as such, so wouldn't fall under the original technical definition of a "gun".
You assume they get it. Point of bespoke rules is every datasheet can be unique.
I am assuming that, yes. Like I said, I'm going to be bullish on Multimeltas. There are times when GW is sloppy about this sort of thing, but I don't think they'll be so sloppy in this case.
A million dollars (pinky to lip) says that all marines get the upgraded MMs and upgraded melta rule on all their stuff and everyone else including CSM does not get it.
Really think the more probable outcome is that in the codex the gun is changed to a "Melty McMeltyface auto-melt rifle" and everyone else stays the same.
I mean its the usual balance issues all the way down. If all MMs are suddenly 2 shots then Lascannons *suck*. I think people falling over themselves to throw MMs onto anything that moves may be disappointed.
Yeah, I'm not buying that GW won't just give loyalist space marines better versions of all the stadard shared imperial weaponry and leave everyone else with shittier outdated versions.
I mean, they've already done it with Boltguns, Plasma Guns, Melta Guns, Autocannons, Heavy Stubbers weirdly enough, Chainswords, Storm Shields, Power Swords (what, oh, these? No they're MASTER CRAFTED Power swords, meaning they're a power axe strapped to a power sword that does 2 damage...)
Do I think all Heavy Bolters and Multi-Meltas within Codex Space Marines will get the new buffed up super statline? Yes. Do I think anyone else will get it? I'm highly doubtful, and if they do, it might be sloooooooooowly rolled out through the codexes so armies like GSC who will probably be last again will be using the shittier versions after everyone else already gets them.
It will be incredibly laughable though when marines have superior versions of every standard weapon and they're VASTLY superior to all the xenos factions whose shtick is "crazy advanced tech" like Tau Eldar and Drukhari.
So English is just missing the basic/generic term for long barreled firearms? (never really thought about that)
In German "Gewehr" is generic, Büchse specific for rifled and Flinte for smoothbore firearms
there are other terms as well if the loading mechanics or length is the important difference
so if we use the specific word for the rifled firearm, this is the important feature of the weapon
otherwise the generic term or one appropriate for the features of the gun is used
kodos wrote: So English is just missing the basic/generic term for long barreled firearms? (never really thought about that)
In German "Gewehr" is generic, Büchse specific for rifled and Flinte for smoothbore firearms
there are other terms as well if the loading mechanics or length is the important difference
so if we use the specific word for the rifled firearm, this is the important feature of the weapon
otherwise the generic term or one appropriate for the features of the gun is used
The generic term would be "long gun", but that's rarely used outside of specific contexts, and never used in naming individual small arms that I'm aware of. For everyday use, there's not really a good generic term that doesn't start including or excluding too much. "Rifle" is probably the closest English gets to wanting to describe a modern small arm that's not a pistol or shotgun.
Rather than the name, what bugs me is the silly above the barrel vertical grip on the melta-rifles. Now that thing doesn't make sense. A horizontal side or even chainsaw grip would make more sense if you don't want to just hold the forestock.
Do I think all Heavy Bolters and Multi-Meltas within Codex Space Marines will get the new buffed up super statline? Yes. Do I think anyone else will get it? I'm highly doubtful, and if they do, it might be sloooooooooowly rolled out through the codexes so armies like GSC who will probably be last again will be using the shittier versions after everyone else already gets them.
It will be incredibly laughable though when marines have superior versions of every standard weapon and they're VASTLY superior to all the xenos factions whose shtick is "crazy advanced tech" like Tau Eldar and Drukhari.
Uh 1 shot dam2 heavy bolter is nerf compared to 3 shot dam1. Even vs stuff with 2/4/6 etc wound you lose and against odd wounds you suck.
There's been 2 different multi meltas for about year and the way overheats work vary wildly between armies as well
Do I think all Heavy Bolters and Multi-Meltas within Codex Space Marines will get the new buffed up super statline? Yes. Do I think anyone else will get it? I'm highly doubtful, and if they do, it might be sloooooooooowly rolled out through the codexes so armies like GSC who will probably be last again will be using the shittier versions after everyone else already gets them.
It will be incredibly laughable though when marines have superior versions of every standard weapon and they're VASTLY superior to all the xenos factions whose shtick is "crazy advanced tech" like Tau Eldar and Drukhari.
Uh 1 shot dam2 heavy bolter is nerf compared to 3 shot dam1. Even vs stuff with 2/4/6 etc wound you lose and against odd wounds you suck.
There's been 2 different multi meltas for about year and the way overheats work vary wildly between armies as well
I think most are assuming that most heavy bolters will be going to damage 2 3 shots. Which is a bit of a weird thing to assume, considering how much they'd be basically exactly the same as autocannons but just infinitely better at that point. but it explains the weird unneeded price nerf so people are clinging to that rationalization.
kodos wrote: So English is just missing the basic/generic term for long barreled firearms? (never really thought about that)
In German "Gewehr" is generic, Büchse specific for rifled and Flinte for smoothbore firearms
there are other terms as well if the loading mechanics or length is the important difference
so if we use the specific word for the rifled firearm, this is the important feature of the weapon
otherwise the generic term or one appropriate for the features of the gun is used
English is weird.
The generic term is "Long arm", as opposed to "Small arms", or in some cases "Long gun", but as a rifled long arm has become the norm, the term is usually just "rifle" with "smoothbore" used for a long arm that isn't rifled.
IE, all long arms are Rifles unless specifically called a Smoothbore.
Which gets odd when you get to science fiction stuff, since "Rifle" doesn't really apply to a gun that isn't rifled, but we still use it because we're lazy.
See also: Clips vs magazines.
English! Technically we have rules but honestly? Most people don't follow them. It's a terrible language but good luck getting most Americans to learn another one.
Do I think all Heavy Bolters and Multi-Meltas within Codex Space Marines will get the new buffed up super statline? Yes. Do I think anyone else will get it? I'm highly doubtful, and if they do, it might be sloooooooooowly rolled out through the codexes so armies like GSC who will probably be last again will be using the shittier versions after everyone else already gets them.
It will be incredibly laughable though when marines have superior versions of every standard weapon and they're VASTLY superior to all the xenos factions whose shtick is "crazy advanced tech" like Tau Eldar and Drukhari.
Uh 1 shot dam2 heavy bolter is nerf compared to 3 shot dam1. Even vs stuff with 2/4/6 etc wound you lose and against odd wounds you suck.
There's been 2 different multi meltas for about year and the way overheats work vary wildly between armies as well
I think most are assuming that most heavy bolters will be going to damage 2 3 shots. Which is a bit of a weird thing to assume, considering how much they'd be basically exactly the same as autocannons but just infinitely better at that point. but it explains the weird unneeded price nerf so people are clinging to that rationalization.
They'd be lower strength than autocannons. They're also wildly over priced and almost never taken by choice as they are.
Spoletta wrote: They are cheap firepower, but barring some special rules they come with some significant drawbacks.
Slow.
They cannot hurt anything 27" away.
Fragile. Really fragile for that cost. The TFC gets away with it thanks to range and no LoS shooting, but this thing is too easy to kill.
Well, you could reframe that another way and call it a pair of Eradicators with a slower move, BS 2+and 1 less wound.
I'm curious to know what the point cost for them is.
Lol you can take em in squads of three, I just noticed that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: I wonder if melta guns will move to 24" with 1 shot.
Then it would be the Eradicator Melta Rifle.
With lastalons they are 130 points. Predator level cost for something that can be oneshot by a lascannon.
Spoletta wrote: They are cheap firepower, but barring some special rules they come with some significant drawbacks.
Slow.
They cannot hurt anything 27" away.
Fragile. Really fragile for that cost. The TFC gets away with it thanks to range and no LoS shooting, but this thing is too easy to kill.
Well, you could reframe that another way and call it a pair of Eradicators with a slower move, BS 2+and 1 less wound.
I'm curious to know what the point cost for them is.
Lol you can take em in squads of three, I just noticed that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: I wonder if melta guns will move to 24" with 1 shot.
Then it would be the Eradicator Melta Rifle.
With lastalons they are 130 points. Predator level cost for something that can be oneshot by a lascannon.
Oh wow. Haha, yeah that's not very impressive then.
On the flipside, it's about the same cost as a quad-lascannon Devastator squad, but with better BS, same number of wounds, higher T, and higher Sv. Not that Devastators are a hot commodity at the moment, but still.
If the leaked datasheet doesn't represent special rules, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Firestrike is going to have Deep Strike and/or a non-negligible invuln save, simply because a range-limited, fragile, extremely slow unit doesn't really fit the Primaris design style.
Do I think all Heavy Bolters and Multi-Meltas within Codex Space Marines will get the new buffed up super statline? Yes. Do I think anyone else will get it? I'm highly doubtful, and if they do, it might be sloooooooooowly rolled out through the codexes so armies like GSC who will probably be last again will be using the shittier versions after everyone else already gets them.
It will be incredibly laughable though when marines have superior versions of every standard weapon and they're VASTLY superior to all the xenos factions whose shtick is "crazy advanced tech" like Tau Eldar and Drukhari.
Uh 1 shot dam2 heavy bolter is nerf compared to 3 shot dam1. Even vs stuff with 2/4/6 etc wound you lose and against odd wounds you suck.
There's been 2 different multi meltas for about year and the way overheats work vary wildly between armies as well
I think most are assuming that most heavy bolters will be going to damage 2 3 shots. Which is a bit of a weird thing to assume, considering how much they'd be basically exactly the same as autocannons but just infinitely better at that point. but it explains the weird unneeded price nerf so people are clinging to that rationalization.
They'd be lower strength than autocannons. They're also wildly over priced and almost never taken by choice as they are.
With 3 shots they would deal more damage than an autocannon against all targets except specifically T6 where Autocannons would wound on 3s and Heavy Bolters would wound on 5s.
Not that marine players would care as your autocannons have all already been upgraded to be either AP-2 or 3 shots Ahead of the ball game!
catbarf wrote: On the flipside, it's about the same cost as a quad-lascannon Devastator squad, but with better BS, same number of wounds, higher T, and higher Sv. Not that Devastators are a hot commodity at the moment, but still.
If the leaked datasheet doesn't represent special rules, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Firestrike is going to have Deep Strike and/or a non-negligible invuln save, simply because a range-limited, fragile, extremely slow unit doesn't really fit the Primaris design style.
Devastators have access to cheap transports, a wider range of weaponry, and a 48" range Lascannon gives more defensive deployment capability. They have a great advantage in being very tailor-able with good deployment ootions.
I've been relying heavily on Plasma Cannon Devs for a couple years now, and Plasma Cannons only got better with 9th.
1) All MMs are 2 shots and all meltas are getting the d6+3 Damage at half range. It makes sense. MMs have 2 barrels, so they should be 2 shots.
There's still room for Lascannons for several reasons. They are 5ppm cheaper than MMs, many units come stock with Las and can't swap for MMs, and the range allows more flexibility.
MMs would be the default antitank option for fast units, but Lascannons have merits on slower units, especially INFANTRY.
2) Heavy bolters become D:2 at their current Heavy 3 profile. It would make them a worthwhile choice over just spamming various Bolt rifles.
I hope this also means that the image of the Invictors HB pistol is either a misprint, or it's getting it's own Heavy Heavy bolt pistol variant that comes stock with its points cost.
3) At release of the SM codex that has all these changes, I hope an FAQ drops for Chaos Marines, Sisters, GKs and Guard (did I miss any?) That bumps those factions' MMs, HBs and meltaguns to match
Do I think all Heavy Bolters and Multi-Meltas within Codex Space Marines will get the new buffed up super statline? Yes. Do I think anyone else will get it? I'm highly doubtful, and if they do, it might be sloooooooooowly rolled out through the codexes so armies like GSC who will probably be last again will be using the shittier versions after everyone else already gets them.
It will be incredibly laughable though when marines have superior versions of every standard weapon and they're VASTLY superior to all the xenos factions whose shtick is "crazy advanced tech" like Tau Eldar and Drukhari.
Uh 1 shot dam2 heavy bolter is nerf compared to 3 shot dam1. Even vs stuff with 2/4/6 etc wound you lose and against odd wounds you suck.
There's been 2 different multi meltas for about year and the way overheats work vary wildly between armies as well
I think most are assuming that most heavy bolters will be going to damage 2 3 shots. Which is a bit of a weird thing to assume, considering how much they'd be basically exactly the same as autocannons but just infinitely better at that point. but it explains the weird unneeded price nerf so people are clinging to that rationalization.
They'd be lower strength than autocannons. They're also wildly over priced and almost never taken by choice as they are.
With 3 shots they would deal more damage than an autocannon against all targets except specifically T6 where Autocannons would wound on 3s and Heavy Bolters would wound on 5s.
Not that marine players would care as your autocannons have all already been upgraded to be either AP-2 or 3 shots Ahead of the ball game!
And t7, autocannon wins there I think. With transports on the rise again those are valuable brackets to be good at.
Do I think all Heavy Bolters and Multi-Meltas within Codex Space Marines will get the new buffed up super statline? Yes. Do I think anyone else will get it? I'm highly doubtful, and if they do, it might be sloooooooooowly rolled out through the codexes so armies like GSC who will probably be last again will be using the shittier versions after everyone else already gets them.
It will be incredibly laughable though when marines have superior versions of every standard weapon and they're VASTLY superior to all the xenos factions whose shtick is "crazy advanced tech" like Tau Eldar and Drukhari.
Uh 1 shot dam2 heavy bolter is nerf compared to 3 shot dam1. Even vs stuff with 2/4/6 etc wound you lose and against odd wounds you suck.
There's been 2 different multi meltas for about year and the way overheats work vary wildly between armies as well
I think most are assuming that most heavy bolters will be going to damage 2 3 shots. Which is a bit of a weird thing to assume, considering how much they'd be basically exactly the same as autocannons but just infinitely better at that point. but it explains the weird unneeded price nerf so people are clinging to that rationalization.
They'd be lower strength than autocannons. They're also wildly over priced and almost never taken by choice as they are.
With 3 shots they would deal more damage than an autocannon against all targets except specifically T6 where Autocannons would wound on 3s and Heavy Bolters would wound on 5s.
Not that marine players would care as your autocannons have all already been upgraded to be either AP-2 or 3 shots Ahead of the ball game!
And t7, autocannon wins there I think. With transports on the rise again those are valuable brackets to be good at.
Damage is identical at T7. All other toughness values besides T6 a D2 heavy bolter is identical or better than an autocannon. T6 is the rarest toughness value as well.
It will be interesting to see what they do with Multimeltas. As mentioned we currently have two versions: roll two dice and pick highest; roll two dice and pick one (Codex Space Marines 2019 and Codex Adepta Sororitas).
I doubt there is any change to Heavy Bolters coming. I strongly suspect the Invictor Warsuit has its weapon renamed in the new codex.
Do I think all Heavy Bolters and Multi-Meltas within Codex Space Marines will get the new buffed up super statline? Yes. Do I think anyone else will get it? I'm highly doubtful, and if they do, it might be sloooooooooowly rolled out through the codexes so armies like GSC who will probably be last again will be using the shittier versions after everyone else already gets them.
It will be incredibly laughable though when marines have superior versions of every standard weapon and they're VASTLY superior to all the xenos factions whose shtick is "crazy advanced tech" like Tau Eldar and Drukhari.
Uh 1 shot dam2 heavy bolter is nerf compared to 3 shot dam1. Even vs stuff with 2/4/6 etc wound you lose and against odd wounds you suck.
There's been 2 different multi meltas for about year and the way overheats work vary wildly between armies as well
I think most are assuming that most heavy bolters will be going to damage 2 3 shots. Which is a bit of a weird thing to assume, considering how much they'd be basically exactly the same as autocannons but just infinitely better at that point. but it explains the weird unneeded price nerf so people are clinging to that rationalization.
They'd be lower strength than autocannons. They're also wildly over priced and almost never taken by choice as they are.
With 3 shots they would deal more damage than an autocannon against all targets except specifically T6 where Autocannons would wound on 3s and Heavy Bolters would wound on 5s.
Not that marine players would care as your autocannons have all already been upgraded to be either AP-2 or 3 shots Ahead of the ball game!
And t7, autocannon wins there I think. With transports on the rise again those are valuable brackets to be good at.
Damage is identical at T7. All other toughness values besides T6 a D2 heavy bolter is identical or better than an autocannon. T6 is the rarest toughness value as well.
Pretty sure 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 46, 194, 10 billion and six are all rarer toughness values.
tneva82 wrote: There's been 2 different multi meltas for about year and the way overheats work vary wildly between armies as well
You've mentioned this (or something like this) a couple of times now - where are they, and what are the differences?
In more recent books, melta weapons let you discard a die of your choice rather than the lowest roll. (SM definitely has the choice, not sure how far back it goes- DG have 'lowest', anyone who cares might check Chaos 2.0)
Plasma weapons effect on rolling 1 varies between 'destroyed,' 'slain,' '1 MW' and '1 MW for each roll of 1' depending on the book and weapon. There may be other variations out there, but those are present in GSC and SM ('destroyed' is current, 'slain' is the old version).*
This is in contrast to the Demolisher Cannon, which was updated in every current FAQ (that can have one in the army) to have the same profile.
So there is precedent to update a weapon if they feel like it, or ignore the differences completely.
----
*Its worth noting that the 9th edition rules exclusively use the term 'destroyed.' Slain technically no longer has any game meaning that I can find..
----
It may be worthwhile to check the 'app' to see if codexes with the older versions have been updated, but I doubt it.
90 points for a speed with a MM and AC (so 5 more). That gives the speeder better shooting than the ATV for 2 less wounds, but 2 to 6" more movement and fly. Seems like a pretty decent set of trade-offs...barring a special rule for ATVs.
Just curious Daedalus, where did you find the point-costs for the ATV?
IIRC, it's in the Indomitus points section of CA20.
Correct. Who knows what the codex will bring, however.
tneva82 wrote: There's been 2 different multi meltas for about year and the way overheats work vary wildly between armies as well
You've mentioned this (or something like this) a couple of times now - where are they, and what are the differences?
Marines/Sisters vs everybody else(and you can include any non-imperium melta weapon at that).
Just check the rules yourself. I'm not going to be handing out rules. Do little bit of work yourself
Jesus Christ don't be so pedantic. Roll 2d6 and pick 1 vs roll 2d6 and use the highest. Yes there's a permissive difference but please enlighten me when you would ever pick a lower result.
tneva82 wrote: There's been 2 different multi meltas for about year and the way overheats work vary wildly between armies as well
You've mentioned this (or something like this) a couple of times now - where are they, and what are the differences?
In more recent books, melta weapons let you discard a die of your choice rather than the lowest roll. (SM definitely has the choice, not sure how far back it goes- DG have 'lowest', anyone who cares might check Chaos 2.0)
Plasma weapons effect on rolling 1 varies between 'destroyed,' 'slain,' '1 MW' and '1 MW for each roll of 1' depending on the book and weapon. There may be other variations out there, but those are present in GSC and SM ('destroyed' is current, 'slain' is the old version).*
This is in contrast to the Demolisher Cannon, which was updated in every current FAQ (that can have one in the army) to have the same profile.
So there is precedent to update a weapon if they feel like it, or ignore the differences completely.
----
*Its worth noting that the 9th edition rules exclusively use the term 'destroyed.' Slain technically no longer has any game meaning that I can find..
----
It may be worthwhile to check the 'app' to see if codexes with the older versions have been updated, but I doubt it.
The intent of the Melta rules and Plasmas slain/destroyed was arguably the same, so Imo no difference there.
The difference of intent in slain/destroyed vs. MW is clear too, but in the cases I know, they are explicity differently named weapons.
So this is from the 'recruitment' article that went up today (though the same pics are in the starter set article). I was looking over the pic and the Necron Warrior datasheet (behind the space marine icons) looked a little strange. Comparing it to the Edge of Silence datasheet from Indomitus, the layout is reversed (the picture and description are on the right side in EoS) but notably, its special rules are gone. Stripped out between weapon options and Keywords. Just like the datasheets we've seen for the Invader, Firestrike, Doomstalker and Lokhust.
So rather than a draft for edge of silence, it looks like these 4 mystery datasheets were intended for a simplified box set, maybe even the starter set (before contents were finalized).
^Ahh, good catch. That makes sense, the datasheets in Indomitus reference the codexes with things like Ressurection Protocalls, etc. This being a starter set, and not having the codexes, it makes some sense that they'd strip that stuff out.
Not elegant though. They could have provided those referenced rules in the starter.
Insectum7 wrote: Not elegant though. They could have provided those referenced rules in the starter.
They could have provided the full Codex entries for the units in Indomitus as well so we weren't left guessing for months whether Outriders can have more than 3 models or Assault Intercessor Sergeants can take anything extra beyond plasma pistols, but GW is paranoid about anything getting out, so instead we got cut-down entries.
Insectum7 wrote: Not elegant though. They could have provided those referenced rules in the starter.
They could have provided the full Codex entries for the units in Indomitus as well so we weren't left guessing for months whether Outriders can have more than 3 models or Assault Intercessor Sergeants can take anything extra beyond plasma pistols, but GW is paranoid about anything getting out, so instead we got cut-down entries.
And, if I had to guess, I'd say that because these are actual starter boxes (unlike Indomitus), and they don't want datasheets referring to a Codex that will be invalidated a month or two later, they're just cutting out all references to the current Marine/Necron Codices as Emperor Forbid they print the new/updated Reanimation Protocols or ATSKNF rules before the new Codex comes out...
And, if I had to guess, I'd say that because these are actual starter boxes (inlike Indomitus), and they don't want datasheets referring to a Codex that will be invalidated a month or two later, they're just cutting out all references to the current Marine/Necron Codices as Emperor Forbid they print the new/updated Reanimation Protocols or ATSKNF rules before the new Codex comes out...
Doubtful perhaps - but its possible these were sent to print before the Codex was finalised.
Guess it depends on which takes longer to produce.
Crazy thought.
I'm starting to see it as a possibility that Shock assault and Bolter discipline are going away in the new codex.
They were bandaid rules to help the marines in a moment of desperate need, but now that the melee version of the primaris has 3 attacks base, and the bikes have been given a better shock assault, I could actually see that rules going away. Same for bolter discipline, it was made to make bolters scarier, but now there are doctrines for that. There is no longer a reason for a rule that tries to limit the mobility of a force which should be highly mobile.
The datasheets of indomitus only report "Angels of Death" as a rule, because right now those 2 rules are embedded inside that. Making them disappear would be easy and would make sense in many cases.
Just wishful thinking, I know, but the chances aren't zero.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Ahh, good catch. That makes sense, the datasheets in Indomitus reference the codexes with things like Ressurection Protocalls, etc. This being a starter set, and not having the codexes, it makes some sense that they'd strip that stuff out.
Not elegant though. They could have provided those referenced rules in the starter.
Or they're in another box set that is still to be announced, like a reinforcements box set designed to buff up the forces in the main box?
Spoletta wrote: Crazy thought.
I'm starting to see it as a possibility that Shock assault and Bolter discipline are going away in the new codex.
They were bandaid rules to help the marines in a moment of desperate need, but now that the melee version of the primaris has 3 attacks base, and the bikes have been given a better shock assault, I could actually see that rules going away. Same for bolter discipline, it was made to make bolters scarier, but now there are doctrines for that. There is no longer a reason for a rule that tries to limit the mobility of a force which should be highly mobile.
The datasheets of indomitus only report "Angels of Death" as a rule, because right now those 2 rules are embedded inside that. Making them disappear would be easy and would make sense in many cases.
Just wishful thinking, I know, but the chances aren't zero.
I thought this too - but I think history shows GW generally doesn't like taking away rules.
They could however change it so for instance bolter discipline only applies in the tactical doctrine, the extra attack only occurs in the Assault Doctrine.
Spoletta wrote: Crazy thought.
I'm starting to see it as a possibility that Shock assault and Bolter discipline are going away in the new codex.
They were bandaid rules to help the marines in a moment of desperate need, but now that the melee version of the primaris has 3 attacks base, and the bikes have been given a better shock assault, I could actually see that rules going away. Same for bolter discipline, it was made to make bolters scarier, but now there are doctrines for that. There is no longer a reason for a rule that tries to limit the mobility of a force which should be highly mobile.
The datasheets of indomitus only report "Angels of Death" as a rule, because right now those 2 rules are embedded inside that. Making them disappear would be easy and would make sense in many cases.
Just wishful thinking, I know, but the chances aren't zero.
I highly doubt this. Especially for bolters. It'd also turn assault bolters into the king of bolters.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It would also most likely mean the loss of Malefic Volleys and Hateful Assault, which would make csm even worse, so I hope this theory is wrong.
I'm saying that those rules are removed with the new codex, not with a FAQ.
Sure, it would mean that those are also going from CSM in the next codex, but every new codex is a partial redesign. You can't assume that CSM would come out worse.
Spoletta wrote: Crazy thought.
I'm starting to see it as a possibility that Shock assault and Bolter discipline are going away in the new codex.
They were bandaid rules to help the marines in a moment of desperate need, but now that the melee version of the primaris has 3 attacks base, and the bikes have been given a better shock assault, I could actually see that rules going away. Same for bolter discipline, it was made to make bolters scarier, but now there are doctrines for that. There is no longer a reason for a rule that tries to limit the mobility of a force which should be highly mobile.
The datasheets of indomitus only report "Angels of Death" as a rule, because right now those 2 rules are embedded inside that. Making them disappear would be easy and would make sense in many cases.
Just wishful thinking, I know, but the chances aren't zero.
I thought this too - but I think history shows GW generally doesn't like taking away rules.
They could however change it so for instance bolter discipline only applies in the tactical doctrine, the extra attack only occurs in the Assault Doctrine.
I dare you to say that to a Dark Eldar player.
GW takes rules away all the time. I forget if it was the 2nd -> 3rd or the 3rd -> 4th transition, but I remember when Assault Marines went from having the weapon options of the current Vanguard Veterans (...minus Storm Shields I think) to just Chainswords and a Melta Gun/Plasma Gun/Flamer or two. I couldn't tell you when TAC Marines and Devastators lost Autocannons. Librarians used to come at four different levels of increasing power and we only just got one of them back. No more Vortex Grenades, and a lot of other universal wargear. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are a lot of other things I'm forgetting and that's not even mentioning all the things that went to Legends since Primaris came out.
Spoletta wrote: Crazy thought.
I'm starting to see it as a possibility that Shock assault and Bolter discipline are going away in the new codex.
They were bandaid rules to help the marines in a moment of desperate need, but now that the melee version of the primaris has 3 attacks base, and the bikes have been given a better shock assault, I could actually see that rules going away. Same for bolter discipline, it was made to make bolters scarier, but now there are doctrines for that. There is no longer a reason for a rule that tries to limit the mobility of a force which should be highly mobile.
The datasheets of indomitus only report "Angels of Death" as a rule, because right now those 2 rules are embedded inside that. Making them disappear would be easy and would make sense in many cases.
Just wishful thinking, I know, but the chances aren't zero.
TBH if I were designing doctrines, I'd probably have mechanics like Bolter Discipline and Shock Assault be what doctrines do in the first place. Have Devastator let your infantry move and shoot Heavy without penalty, Tactical let you rapid fire to full range while stationary, and then Assault give you an extra attack when you charge. Seems more thematic than blanket AP bonuses.
But this is GW, so I don't expect Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault, and Doctrines are going anywhere. GW has only just 'fixed' Marines; I can't imagine they're keen to reduce their power again by stripping out any of those bespoke army-wide rules they've created.
Spoletta wrote: Crazy thought.
I'm starting to see it as a possibility that Shock assault and Bolter discipline are going away in the new codex.
They were bandaid rules to help the marines in a moment of desperate need, but now that the melee version of the primaris has 3 attacks base, and the bikes have been given a better shock assault, I could actually see that rules going away. Same for bolter discipline, it was made to make bolters scarier, but now there are doctrines for that. There is no longer a reason for a rule that tries to limit the mobility of a force which should be highly mobile.
The datasheets of indomitus only report "Angels of Death" as a rule, because right now those 2 rules are embedded inside that. Making them disappear would be easy and would make sense in many cases.
Just wishful thinking, I know, but the chances aren't zero.
I thought this too - but I think history shows GW generally doesn't like taking away rules.
They could however change it so for instance bolter discipline only applies in the tactical doctrine, the extra attack only occurs in the Assault Doctrine.
I dare you to say that to a Dark Eldar player.
GW takes rules away all the time. I forget if it was the 2nd -> 3rd or the 3rd -> 4th transition, but I remember when Assault Marines went from having the weapon options of the current Vanguard Veterans (...minus Storm Shields I think) to just Chainswords and a Melta Gun/Plasma Gun/Flamer or two. I couldn't tell you when TAC Marines and Devastators lost Autocannons. Librarians used to come at four different levels of increasing power and we only just got one of them back. No more Vortex Grenades, and a lot of other universal wargear. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are a lot of other things I'm forgetting and that's not even mentioning all the things that went to Legends since Primaris came out.
Everything you're describing is from 2nd Ed over 20 years ago, which was a radically different game from 3rd and later editions. The entire point of removing those options was to streamline the game.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It would also most likely mean the loss of Malefic Volleys and Hateful Assault, which would make csm even worse, so I hope this theory is wrong.
I'm saying that those rules are removed with the new codex, not with a FAQ.
Sure, it would mean that those are also going from CSM in the next codex, but every new codex is a partial redesign. You can't assume that CSM would come out worse.
Considering the "redesigns" of the last three csm codexes you'll understand if I'm not optimistic.
Spoletta wrote: Crazy thought.
I'm starting to see it as a possibility that Shock assault and Bolter discipline are going away in the new codex.
They were bandaid rules to help the marines in a moment of desperate need, but now that the melee version of the primaris has 3 attacks base, and the bikes have been given a better shock assault, I could actually see that rules going away. Same for bolter discipline, it was made to make bolters scarier, but now there are doctrines for that. There is no longer a reason for a rule that tries to limit the mobility of a force which should be highly mobile.
The datasheets of indomitus only report "Angels of Death" as a rule, because right now those 2 rules are embedded inside that. Making them disappear would be easy and would make sense in many cases.
Just wishful thinking, I know, but the chances aren't zero.
I thought this too - but I think history shows GW generally doesn't like taking away rules.
They could however change it so for instance bolter discipline only applies in the tactical doctrine, the extra attack only occurs in the Assault Doctrine.
I dare you to say that to a Dark Eldar player.
GW takes rules away all the time. I forget if it was the 2nd -> 3rd or the 3rd -> 4th transition, but I remember when Assault Marines went from having the weapon options of the current Vanguard Veterans (...minus Storm Shields I think) to just Chainswords and a Melta Gun/Plasma Gun/Flamer or two. I couldn't tell you when TAC Marines and Devastators lost Autocannons. Librarians used to come at four different levels of increasing power and we only just got one of them back. No more Vortex Grenades, and a lot of other universal wargear. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are a lot of other things I'm forgetting and that's not even mentioning all the things that went to Legends since Primaris came out.
Everything you're describing is from 2nd Ed over 20 years ago, which was a radically different game from 3rd and later editions. The entire point of removing those options was to streamline the game.
I mean you could just use CSM as an example. Where Marks went from actual stats to just stratagem markers.
I'll tell myself? GW wiping whole units is a bit different from rules.
I.E. "uh uh, Hellion stun claw is a bit odd... just make it do a mortal wound on 6s. Because it used to do something more but we don't want to kill it completely.")
Even if you don't like the ghost of the rule that lingers - it does.
Case in point would obviously be marks mentioned above. Its a fundamentally stupid system in 8th - it would actually be buff in terms of flexibility to just remove them entirely.
But GW can't bring themselves to let go. "Marks of Chaos" are a feature of 40k. So they have to keep on existing, even if they don't do anything useful.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It would also most likely mean the loss of Malefic Volleys and Hateful Assault, which would make csm even worse, so I hope this theory is wrong.
I'm saying that those rules are removed with the new codex, not with a FAQ.
Sure, it would mean that those are also going from CSM in the next codex, but every new codex is a partial redesign. You can't assume that CSM would come out worse.
It'd be pretty painful for old marines, too. It props them up a good bit.
I'll tell myself? GW wiping whole units is a bit different from rules.
I.E. "uh uh, Hellion stun claw is a bit odd... just make it do a mortal wound on 6s. Because it used to do something more but we don't want to kill it completely.")
Even if you don't like the ghost of the rule that lingers - it does.
Case in point would obviously be marks mentioned above. Its a fundamentally stupid system in 8th - it would actually be buff in terms of flexibility to just remove them entirely.
But GW can't bring themselves to let go. "Marks of Chaos" are a feature of 40k. So they have to keep on existing, even if they don't do anything useful.
GK lost a ton of rules when they got their new books. I saw what the old GK codex can do, like kill stuff on an Ld test or get blanket +1str to all weapons, including tanks just by paying points and without stratagems. NDKs could jump around as if they had jump packs etc.
Saying GW doesn't like to get rid of rules is just objectively wrong. The necron and GK codexes basically had all the flavour ripped out if them since the Ward books got replaced and they removed anything remotly interesting about them and tyranids haven't had anything to make them interesting since 5th.
Sim-Life wrote: Saying GW doesn't like to get rid of rules is just objectively wrong. The necron and GK codexes basically had all the flavour ripped out if them since the Ward books got replaced and they removed anything remotly interesting about them and tyranids haven't had anything to make them interesting since 5th.
The necron book in 8th got phoned in hard. I hope the new one is more interesting instead of C'tan power being a thing that does mortal wounds, another thing that does mortal wounds, an additional thing that does mortal wounds, etc.
Sim-Life wrote: Saying GW doesn't like to get rid of rules is just objectively wrong. The necron and GK codexes basically had all the flavour ripped out if them since the Ward books got replaced and they removed anything remotly interesting about them and tyranids haven't had anything to make them interesting since 5th.
Or when csm went from the 3.5 codex to 4th? 4th to 6th, 6th to 8th? Remember when Chosen could infiltrate? When marks actually did something? Csm players remember.
Spoletta wrote: Crazy thought.
I'm starting to see it as a possibility that Shock assault and Bolter discipline are going away in the new codex.
They were bandaid rules to help the marines in a moment of desperate need, but now that the melee version of the primaris has 3 attacks base, and the bikes have been given a better shock assault, I could actually see that rules going away. Same for bolter discipline, it was made to make bolters scarier, but now there are doctrines for that. There is no longer a reason for a rule that tries to limit the mobility of a force which should be highly mobile.
The datasheets of indomitus only report "Angels of Death" as a rule, because right now those 2 rules are embedded inside that. Making them disappear would be easy and would make sense in many cases.
Just wishful thinking, I know, but the chances aren't zero.
I thought this too - but I think history shows GW generally doesn't like taking away rules.
They could however change it so for instance bolter discipline only applies in the tactical doctrine, the extra attack only occurs in the Assault Doctrine.
I dare you to say that to a Dark Eldar player.
GW takes rules away all the time. I forget if it was the 2nd -> 3rd or the 3rd -> 4th transition, but I remember when Assault Marines went from having the weapon options of the current Vanguard Veterans (...minus Storm Shields I think) to just Chainswords and a Melta Gun/Plasma Gun/Flamer or two. I couldn't tell you when TAC Marines and Devastators lost Autocannons. Librarians used to come at four different levels of increasing power and we only just got one of them back. No more Vortex Grenades, and a lot of other universal wargear. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are a lot of other things I'm forgetting and that's not even mentioning all the things that went to Legends since Primaris came out.
Everything you're describing is from 2nd Ed over 20 years ago, which was a radically different game from 3rd and later editions. The entire point of removing those options was to streamline the game.
How about power of the machine spirit just straight up not existing anymore, rather than being updated to be consistent with the new edition?
I'll tell myself? GW wiping whole units is a bit different from rules.
I.E. "uh uh, Hellion stun claw is a bit odd... just make it do a mortal wound on 6s. Because it used to do something more but we don't want to kill it completely.")
Even if you don't like the ghost of the rule that lingers - it does.
Case in point would obviously be marks mentioned above. Its a fundamentally stupid system in 8th - it would actually be buff in terms of flexibility to just remove them entirely.
But GW can't bring themselves to let go. "Marks of Chaos" are a feature of 40k. So they have to keep on existing, even if they don't do anything useful.
Unit1126PLL wrote: LMAO. Entire armies and units were deleted on 9th Edition's release.
Removing rules is not unbelievable at all.
Aye, Renegades and Heretics, Elysium Drop Troops, and the Kharybdis Assault Claw R.I.P..
at this point i'll just start bringing stuff that my night lords SHOULD have access to. Screw GW's rules, i'll bring land speeders to my friendly games even if theyre not in the codex. I'll also start playing my Dreadclaw so that it can arrive turn 1 like the loyalists.
Unit1126PLL wrote: LMAO. Entire armies and units were deleted on 9th Edition's release.
Removing rules is not unbelievable at all.
Aye, Renegades and Heretics, Elysium Drop Troops, and the Kharybdis Assault Claw R.I.P..
And the Stormhammer superheavy tank.
FFFFFFFFFF
FF FFFFFFF
FF FF FF
They killed the Stormhammer too? So that's two models that they still sell that have been removed. Anybody have any more?
VladimirHerzog wrote:at this point i'll just start bringing stuff that my night lords SHOULD have access to. Screw GW's rules, i'll bring land speeders to my friendly games even if theyre not in the codex. I'll also start playing my Dreadclaw so that it can arrive turn 1 like the loyalists.
VladimirHerzog wrote: at this point i'll just start bringing stuff that my night lords SHOULD have access to. Screw GW's rules, i'll bring land speeders to my friendly games even if theyre not in the codex. I'll also start playing my Dreadclaw so that it can arrive turn 1 like the loyalists.
So you are playing narrative. Which is cool and absolutely encouraged by GW.
VladimirHerzog wrote: at this point i'll just start bringing stuff that my night lords SHOULD have access to. Screw GW's rules, i'll bring land speeders to my friendly games even if theyre not in the codex. I'll also start playing my Dreadclaw so that it can arrive turn 1 like the loyalists.
So you are playing narrative. Which is cool and absolutely encouraged by GW.
not narrative per say, ill still be using the Grand Tournament pack. I just want an army with equal rules to its mirrored version and that fits its fluff. (I'll also play it so that legion traits apply to all my models, not just infantry/biker/chars/helbrutes).
I'm still having fun with my night lords but i hope the rules in PA will stay legal for as long as possible since without them, Night lords don't have much to go on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
armisael wrote: I heard that Canoptek Wraith got nerf a lot in repackaged datasheets.
armisael wrote: I heard that Canoptek Wraith got nerf a lot in repackaged datasheets.
Which was a model which had been treated very very well by point changes.
This gives credit to the theory that the new points are actually meant for the codex versions of the models, as dumb as that sounds.
So when everyone gets their new codex csm will remain tacs -1, Chosen will continue to be equal to tacs, all Contemptors will be equal (which would beg the question: Why do loyalists need three data sheets if they're all the same?), grots will be equal to guardsmen, and gw is somehow going to make Fellblades worth 880 ppm. Nope, sorry, ain't buying it. No way are these ridiculous points an indication of rules most factions will be getting months from now.
Thankfully, the manuals included in all three Starter Sets feature some suggested additions for the collections in the boxes. Not only that, but as an added bonus, they also include the full datasheets for these new units as well as an extra mission designed with their inclusion in mind! They may not be available just yet, but keep an eye out for the Primaris Invader ATV, the Primaris Firestrike Servo-turret, the Lokhust Heavy Destroyer and Canoptek Doomstalker, as they’re all coming soon!
New Terminator instruction-sheet spotted: +1 wound, Chainfists are D3 damage, power fists flat 2 damage, power swords are S+1, heavy flamer is 12" range, Cyclone Launcher Frag Profile changed to 2d6 shots (was 2d3).
Khorzain wrote: New Terminator instruction-sheet spotted: +1 wound, Chainfists are D3 damage, power fists flat 2 damage, power swords are S+1, heavy flamer is 12" range.
That...has a great many intriguing implications.
Also its about fething time they fixed the frag profile on the CML.
The Cyclone Launcher was always 2d6 in Frag mode, it is and always has been just a twin-linked Missile Launcher.
What interests me is that suddenly the Power Sword, Power Axe, etc all being 5 points makes sense, I'll be very surprised if that S+1, Ap 3, D1 profile isn't standard over all the power weapons now. (They did the same thing going from 2nd to 3rd if I recall, there were a half dozen different profiles in 2nd but they were all lumped under "Power Weapon" in 3rd.)
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
you mean like they did when the loyalist chapter tactics started applying to all their units?
The Newman wrote: The Cyclone Launcher was always 2d6 in Frag mode, it is and always has been just a twin-linked Missile Launcher.
What interests me is that suddenly the Power Sword, Power Axe, etc all being 5 points makes sense, I'll be very surprised if that S+1, Ap 3, D1 profile isn't standard over all the power weapons now. (They did the same thing going from 2nd to 3rd if I recall, there were a half dozen different profiles in 2nd but they were all lumped under "Power Weapon" in 3rd.)
Well even if it is codex changes won't be all that quick so many will be old stats for long while
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
Like multi melta change last year was errataed? Oh sorry they didn't.
And all armies obviously have terminators. Oh yes...oh sorry where's dark eldar terminators? Tau? Sob? Necron?
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
They might, but it'll take time for those Codexes to get out. They didn't "FAQ" the Stormshields and explicitly said they'll wait for the Codex to update those. I assume that'd be the philosophy going forward.
If you happen to be the 8th-Ed. "Space Wolves" or "Genestealer Cult"-Equivalent of 9th Edition, you might not get a Codex "bringing you up to 9th Edition standards" for a year or two (especially how slowly GW seems to be rolling out the Marine / Necron book to kick things off).
Combined with Codex-specific Secondaries making it easier to play the missions for books that have a 9th Ed. Codex, it might be a tough year or two for the "late Codex armies" of 9th.
True, but we also all know what GW's track record on it's first 2-3 codexes of a new edition looks like. Nice to be first, until the 5th or 6th comes out and roflstomps you all the time.
The point values for terminators make little sense if they give them a 3rd wound. So I don't think you can assume that the points costs we have now incorporate changes that haven't yet been released (which would be an incredibly stupid thing to do anyway).
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
Tell me again how that helps Necrons or Eldar or Sisters, or Orkz?
So chaos gets buffed to be just as bad relative to marines, while every other factions eat a big fat one.
The Newman wrote: The Cyclone Launcher was always 2d6 in Frag mode, it is and always has been just a twin-linked Missile Launcher.
Did I miss an update to it? The datasheets I'm looking at all say the Cyclone Launcher is 2d3 for Space Marine units. The Typhoon Launcher is the one with a d6 frag profile like a missile launcher.
The Newman wrote: The Cyclone Launcher was always 2d6 in Frag mode, it is and always has been just a twin-linked Missile Launcher.
Did I miss an update to it? The datasheets I'm looking at all say the Cyclone Launcher is 2d3 for Space Marine units. The Typhoon Launcher is the one with a d6 frag profile like a missile launcher.
Galef wrote:I could actually see Swords & Axes being the same +1S AP-3 profile. But Power staves don't make sense with that.
I'm glad to see 3W Terminators though.
I really hope all these Marine changes get incorporated into the Chaos Marines via FAQ and not whenever their codices drop.
-
That makes two of us. Though knowing gw they'll drag they're feet. Or we'll find out all these terminators have primaris in them.
yukishiro1 wrote:The point values for terminators make little sense if they give them a 3rd wound. So I don't think you can assume that the points costs we have now incorporate changes that haven't yet been released (which would be an incredibly stupid thing to do anyway).
What? You mean all those insane points changes weren't actually just gw preplanning for all the new codexes? They're just an enormous hack job that does absolutely nothing for actual balance?
The Newman wrote: The Cyclone Launcher was always 2d6 in Frag mode, it is and always has been just a twin-linked Missile Launcher.
Did I miss an update to it? The datasheets I'm looking at all say the Cyclone Launcher is 2d3 for Space Marine units. The Typhoon Launcher is the one with a d6 frag profile like a missile launcher.
Well shut my mouth. I suppose it's a good thing I never ever fired it in Frag mode despite how often I take the ruddy thing.
The Newman wrote: The Cyclone Launcher was always 2d6 in Frag mode, it is and always has been just a twin-linked Missile Launcher.
Did I miss an update to it? The datasheets I'm looking at all say the Cyclone Launcher is 2d3 for Space Marine units. The Typhoon Launcher is the one with a d6 frag profile like a missile launcher.
Yup, just 2D3 in the Space Marine book.
Also not merely a twin linked ML since it's range is only 36" :(
The Powerfist/Chainfist damage swap is weird. I wish Chainfists were so much better than they are. S10 or D6 damage or something. It's annoying that the Thunder Hammer is both now available to non-Terminators and Terminators don't have an exclusively nasty CC option.
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
Yes, buffs to weak and underused units. Terminators weren't the thing breaking the game.
This right here. Now we might at least see a few Termies on the table instead of them being the "lol that's cute" option. About time they were good for a change!
The Powerfist / Chainfist swap makes sense since they're the same points now, one has the consistent damage that everyone thinks is more valuable and the other has the better Ap. I'm ok with this change.
This right here. Now we might at least see a few Termies on the table instead of them being the "lol that's cute" option. About time they were good for a change!
Deep striking heavy flamers are going to be fun again
I've been running half squads of termis for a while now - they work really well with salamanders. They weren't actually bad before, they just required a bit of finesse. But uh - this makes them a lot better. 3 Wounds a piece makes them legit terrifying - 12" Heavy flamers could also be pretty fun. I might go back to a full 10 man if this is the case.
The Newman wrote: The Cyclone Launcher was always 2d6 in Frag mode, it is and always has been just a twin-linked Missile Launcher.
What interests me is that suddenly the Power Sword, Power Axe, etc all being 5 points makes sense, I'll be very surprised if that S+1, Ap 3, D1 profile isn't standard over all the power weapons now. (They did the same thing going from 2nd to 3rd if I recall, there were a half dozen different profiles in 2nd but they were all lumped under "Power Weapon" in 3rd.)
Well even if it is codex changes won't be all that quick so many will be old stats for long while
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
Like multi melta change last year was errataed? Oh sorry they didn't.
And all armies obviously have terminators. Oh yes...oh sorry where's dark eldar terminators? Tau? Sob? Necron?
Where did I suggest xenos armies have terminators? Who even mentioned multimeltas?
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
Tell me again how that helps Necrons or Eldar or Sisters, or Orkz?
So chaos gets buffed to be just as bad relative to marines, while every other factions eat a big fat one.
Neat.
Ofc, none marine armies are absolute scum and exist purely for other players to curbstomp with their 3 wound terminators, they will also receive no updates or buffs. Of course lets pretend there isn't a massive necron release and their existing units are getting buffed.
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
They might, but it'll take time for those Codexes to get out. They didn't "FAQ" the Stormshields and explicitly said they'll wait for the Codex to update those. I assume that'd be the philosophy going forward.
If you happen to be the 8th-Ed. "Space Wolves" or "Genestealer Cult"-Equivalent of 9th Edition, you might not get a Codex "bringing you up to 9th Edition standards" for a year or two (especially how slowly GW seems to be rolling out the Marine / Necron book to kick things off).
Combined with Codex-specific Secondaries making it easier to play the missions for books that have a 9th Ed. Codex, it might be a tough year or two for the "late Codex armies" of 9th.
There is a chance, I'm hoping that like with bolter discipline this would be a big enough wtf discrepancy they'd roll it out via faq though.
The Newman wrote: The Powerfist / Chainfist swap makes sense since they're the same points now, one has the consistent damage that everyone thinks is more valuable and the other has the better Ap. I'm ok with this change.
You might want to reread the RAWAP on that datasheet for the chainfist...
Is this the 2nd instance we've seen a Flamer become 12"? Or was the Incendium cannon on the Invictor 12" before?
At any rate, I could see ALL Flamers becoming 12" now, especially since they cost the same as Meltaguns or Plasma now.
Flamers were only arbitrarily 8" before because the tear-drop shaped flame template was 8", but that worked vastly differently than Flamers in 8th/9th.
I've got my fingers crossed that Flamers become 12" across the board. At least for Imperials and Chaos. Eldar Flamers are still 5ppm so they could stay unchanged.
Speaking of other armies, anyone else notice that some units you would very much expect to see updates based on the teasers are currently out of stock? Fire Dragons, Pyrovores, CSM Terminators, that sort of thing?
Wonder if maybe the outrage over the bizarre point update was enough to get through to GW that some of those updates better be sooner rather than later.
Terminators are good in 9th with the new points values even without the 3rd wound, extra point of S on the power swords, etc. They're really aggressively pointed.
Galef wrote: Is this the 2nd instance we've seen a Flamer become 12"? Or was the Incendium cannon on the Invictor 12" before?
At any rate, I could see ALL Flamers becoming 12" now, especially since they cost the same as Meltaguns or Plasma now.
Flamers were only arbitrarily 8" before because the tear-drop shaped flame template was 8", but that worked vastly differently than Flamers in 8th/9th.
I've got my fingers crossed that Flamers become 12" across the board. At least for Imperials and Chaos. Eldar Flamers are still 5ppm so they could stay unchanged.
-
The Invictor flamer was 12" out of the box. One of the reasons why it's always been the auto-take weapon choice.
The Newman wrote: Speaking of other armies, anyone else notice that some units you would very much expect to see updates based on the teasers are currently out of stock? Fire Dragons, Pyrovores, CSM Terminators, that sort of thing?
Wonder if maybe the outrage over the bizarre point update was enough to get through to GW that some of those updates better be sooner rather than later.
That's too small a span of time for GW to plan and produce updates.
What's 'out of stock' at the moment is essentially meaningless. In some cases its half or more of the range. For a while the only Necron model available at all was Szeras, and pick up sales alongside Indomitus and the upcoming codex seems like an obvious thing.
yukishiro1 wrote: Terminators are good in 9th with the new points values even without the 3rd wound, extra point of S on the power swords, etc. They're really aggressively pointed.
But what's the 'Primaris only, oldmarines Legends now' narrative going to do in the face of such aggressive provocation?
The Newman wrote: Speaking of other armies, anyone else notice that some units you would very much expect to see updates based on the teasers are currently out of stock? Fire Dragons, Pyrovores, CSM Terminators, that sort of thing?
Wonder if maybe the outrage over the bizarre point update was enough to get through to GW that some of those updates better be sooner rather than later.
Uhhuh. What was bizarre point upgrade over year ago? Seeing gw works with over year lead times. Any model that would start now would be fall 2021 release earliest.
It's not too small a span of time to pack new data card instructions into those boxes if they were already printed along with all the Marine/Necron cards that needed it.
The Newman wrote: The Cyclone Launcher was always 2d6 in Frag mode, it is and always has been just a twin-linked Missile Launcher.
What interests me is that suddenly the Power Sword, Power Axe, etc all being 5 points makes sense, I'll be very surprised if that S+1, Ap 3, D1 profile isn't standard over all the power weapons now. (They did the same thing going from 2nd to 3rd if I recall, there were a half dozen different profiles in 2nd but they were all lumped under "Power Weapon" in 3rd.)
Well even if it is codex changes won't be all that quick so many will be old stats for long while
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
Like multi melta change last year was errataed? Oh sorry they didn't.
And all armies obviously have terminators. Oh yes...oh sorry where's dark eldar terminators? Tau? Sob? Necron?
Where did I suggest xenos armies have terminators? Who even mentioned multimeltas?
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
Tell me again how that helps Necrons or Eldar or Sisters, or Orkz?
So chaos gets buffed to be just as bad relative to marines, while every other factions eat a big fat one.
Neat.
Ofc, none marine armies are absolute scum and exist purely for other players to curbstomp with their 3 wound terminators, they will also receive no updates or buffs. Of course lets pretend there isn't a massive necron release and their existing units are getting buffed.
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
They might, but it'll take time for those Codexes to get out. They didn't "FAQ" the Stormshields and explicitly said they'll wait for the Codex to update those. I assume that'd be the philosophy going forward.
If you happen to be the 8th-Ed. "Space Wolves" or "Genestealer Cult"-Equivalent of 9th Edition, you might not get a Codex "bringing you up to 9th Edition standards" for a year or two (especially how slowly GW seems to be rolling out the Marine / Necron book to kick things off).
Combined with Codex-specific Secondaries making it easier to play the missions for books that have a 9th Ed. Codex, it might be a tough year or two for the "late Codex armies" of 9th.
There is a chance, I'm hoping that like with bolter discipline this would be a big enough wtf discrepancy they'd roll it out via faq though.
Massively missing the point at every level, congrats
Galef wrote: Is this the 2nd instance we've seen a Flamer become 12"? Or was the Incendium cannon on the Invictor 12" before?
At any rate, I could see ALL Flamers becoming 12" now, especially since they cost the same as Meltaguns or Plasma now.
Flamers were only arbitrarily 8" before because the tear-drop shaped flame template was 8", but that worked vastly differently than Flamers in 8th/9th.
I've got my fingers crossed that Flamers become 12" across the board. At least for Imperials and Chaos. Eldar Flamers are still 5ppm so they could stay unchanged.
-
The Invictor flamer was 12" out of the box. One of the reasons why it's always been the auto-take weapon choice.
Sim-Life wrote: Saying GW doesn't like to get rid of rules is just objectively wrong. The necron and GK codexes basically had all the flavour ripped out if them since the Ward books got replaced and they removed anything remotly interesting about them and tyranids haven't had anything to make them interesting since 5th.
Or when csm went from the 3.5 codex to 4th? 4th to 6th, 6th to 8th? Remember when Chosen could infiltrate? When marks actually did something? Csm players remember.
Yeah totally, like how people really only took Mark of Nurgle and that was it? Totally good times!
Mark's not giving flat boosts is fine but there's so little interaction in terms of rules now it's a bit silly.
Ofc, none marine armies are absolute scum and exist purely for other players to curbstomp with their 3 wound terminators, they will also receive no updates or buffs. Of course lets pretend there isn't a massive necron release and their existing units are getting buffed.
I know you're saying this facetiously, but... xenos have been in a bad place for a long time now, and have barely had any decent updates in ... I don't even know how long.
Necrons getting an update now is a big deal, but it's too little too late. And you say it as if suddenly necrons are going to be a force to be reckoned with, but they were the worst army in the game for years, and their new update (so far) may barely be enough to put them into the levels of average at best.
Space marines need a massive series of nerfs and points reductions, to be brought in line with everyone else. Instead... they're getting 50% more durable terminators, and +1 strength on weapons that were already better than most armies have access to for the points.
Sim-Life wrote: Saying GW doesn't like to get rid of rules is just objectively wrong. The necron and GK codexes basically had all the flavour ripped out if them since the Ward books got replaced and they removed anything remotly interesting about them and tyranids haven't had anything to make them interesting since 5th.
Or when csm went from the 3.5 codex to 4th? 4th to 6th, 6th to 8th? Remember when Chosen could infiltrate? When marks actually did something? Csm players remember.
Yeah totally, like how people really only took Mark of Nurgle and that was it? Totally good times!
Mark's not giving flat boosts is fine but there's so little interaction in terms of rules now it's a bit silly.
Wow, went a ways back for this one didn't you?
So what would you do with marks? And I expect to be impressed with Undivided.
Ofc, none marine armies are absolute scum and exist purely for other players to curbstomp with their 3 wound terminators, they will also receive no updates or buffs. Of course lets pretend there isn't a massive necron release and their existing units are getting buffed.
I know you're saying this facetiously, but... xenos have been in a bad place for a long time now, and have barely had any decent updates in ... I don't even know how long.
Necrons getting an update now is a big deal, but it's too little too late. And you say it as if suddenly necrons are going to be a force to be reckoned with, but they were the worst army in the game for years, and their new update (so far) may barely be enough to put them into the levels of average at best.
Space marines need a massive series of nerfs and points reductions, to be brought in line with everyone else. Instead... they're getting 50% more durable terminators, and +1 strength on weapons that were already better than most armies have access to for the points.
You don't know how long? The Codex: Space marine version 2 came out last August. Barely a year ago. You have the memory of a gold fish.
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
you mean like they did when the loyalist chapter tactics started applying to all their units?
I don't know if the shortened datasheets give us all the information to include weapon rules/oddities, but it would be a boost for sure if that pans out.
Ofc, none marine armies are absolute scum and exist purely for other players to curbstomp with their 3 wound terminators, they will also receive no updates or buffs. Of course lets pretend there isn't a massive necron release and their existing units are getting buffed.
I know you're saying this facetiously, but... xenos have been in a bad place for a long time now, and have barely had any decent updates in ... I don't even know how long.
Necrons getting an update now is a big deal, but it's too little too late. And you say it as if suddenly necrons are going to be a force to be reckoned with, but they were the worst army in the game for years, and their new update (so far) may barely be enough to put them into the levels of average at best.
Space marines need a massive series of nerfs and points reductions, to be brought in line with everyone else. Instead... they're getting 50% more durable terminators, and +1 strength on weapons that were already better than most armies have access to for the points.
You don't know how long? The Codex: Space marine version 2 came out last August. Barely a year ago. You have the memory of a gold fish.
Uuuhh....He says he doesn't remember when XENOS got decent update. What does marine codex version 2 have got to do with that? So marines got one in last august. When did xenos get major update? GSC got semi decent, orks got bunch of buggies...what else?
footfoe wrote: You don't know how long? The Codex: Space marine version 2 came out last August. Barely a year ago. You have the memory of a gold fish.
That's when space marines went from being good, to being hideously good. (They had several buffs (some beta) before their codex release that already started fixing issues they had). That's not related to what I said.
The Ynnari triumverate release is probably the last big eldar update, but that's now been completely redacted. Eldar still have a large proportion of their lineup that haven't been usable on the table for more years than some people on this forum have existed. Some of the models can drink, vote, and star in pornography.
No idea when the last necron improvement was. Same with Tau. Tyranids got a few units added to their lineup at some point in the last few years, maybe it was in 7th edition, I missed those as I was taking a break from the game for a couple years.
Xenos commonly have to wait 2 or 3 editions to get updates. At the moment it feels like space marines get a new update every month.
The new instruction pamphlet datasheets are stripped down of all special rules so unless you assume GW went for zero special rules from now on it's incomplete datasheets so -1 to hit is likely there.
Since most competive etc players have codex anyway these aren't that useful for those. These are more for those tim-12yo's playing at home with friends who might not even have codex so rules in box, even if incomplete of special rules, works for them(or at least that's the only scenario where I can see use for these seeing they don't have point values nor special rules).
footfoe wrote: You don't know how long? The Codex: Space marine version 2 came out last August. Barely a year ago. You have the memory of a gold fish.
That's when space marines went from being good, to being hideously good. (They had several buffs (some beta) before their codex release that already started fixing issues they had). That's not related to what I said.
The Ynnari triumverate release is probably the last big eldar update, but that's now been completely redacted. Eldar still have a large proportion of their lineup that haven't been usable on the table for more years than some people on this forum have existed. Some of the models can drink, vote, and star in pornography.
No idea when the last necron improvement was. Same with Tau. Tyranids got a few units added to their lineup at some point in the last few years, maybe it was in 7th edition, I missed those as I was taking a break from the game for a couple years.
Xenos commonly have to wait 2 or 3 editions to get updates. At the moment it feels like space marines get a new update every month.
No new Nids since 2014. I'd love some updates to a few of our finecast sculpts or (gasp!) something new.
Sim-Life wrote: Saying GW doesn't like to get rid of rules is just objectively wrong. The necron and GK codexes basically had all the flavour ripped out if them since the Ward books got replaced and they removed anything remotly interesting about them and tyranids haven't had anything to make them interesting since 5th.
Or when csm went from the 3.5 codex to 4th? 4th to 6th, 6th to 8th? Remember when Chosen could infiltrate? When marks actually did something? Csm players remember.
Yeah totally, like how people really only took Mark of Nurgle and that was it? Totally good times!
Mark's not giving flat boosts is fine but there's so little interaction in terms of rules now it's a bit silly.
Wow, went a ways back for this one didn't you?
So what would you do with marks? And I expect to be impressed with Undivided.
Mark's in reality should've unlocked more Strats (we got one for each mark and that's it, obviously a problem), the Icons (which need a rework anyway in terms of rules) and interactions with Daemons. Flat stat boosts is nice and all but it doesn't work with the design philosophy of 8th/9th.
Ofc, none marine armies are absolute scum and exist purely for other players to curbstomp with their 3 wound terminators, they will also receive no updates or buffs. Of course lets pretend there isn't a massive necron release and their existing units are getting buffed.
I know you're saying this facetiously, but... xenos have been in a bad place for a long time now, and have barely had any decent updates in ... I don't even know how long.
Necrons getting an update now is a big deal, but it's too little too late. And you say it as if suddenly necrons are going to be a force to be reckoned with, but they were the worst army in the game for years, and their new update (so far) may barely be enough to put them into the levels of average at best.
Space marines need a massive series of nerfs and points reductions, to be brought in line with everyone else. Instead... they're getting 50% more durable terminators, and +1 strength on weapons that were already better than most armies have access to for the points.
You don't know how long? The Codex: Space marine version 2 came out last August. Barely a year ago. You have the memory of a gold fish.
Uuuhh....He says he doesn't remember when XENOS got decent update. What does marine codex version 2 have got to do with that? So marines got one in last august. When did xenos get major update? GSC got semi decent, orks got bunch of buggies...what else?
the point is that prior to space marines 8.5 Space Marines where NOT the top army. IIRC Eldar where (suprise suprise )
I don't know if the shortened datasheets give us all the information to include weapon rules/oddities, but it would be a boost for sure if that pans out.
They don't, they just give stats.
Basically the condensed datasheets exist to avoid doing five pages of translations in the assembly instructions. Including special rules would render that pointless.
If it isn't a number or a stat that can't be shown by a simple icon, it isn't included.
From the rules pdf (page 7)
A condensed version of a model’s datasheet can be found in its construction guide – this contains less
information than the full version, but will still let you get your unit on the field straight away.
Page 8 then shows the condensed and full version of the Outriders Squad (plus the full version of Assault Intercessors). 'Full' here having the meaning of weapon text, wargear options, abilities and keywords, as they appeared in Indomitus (not necessarily the codex)
OOhhhhhhh. . . I missed that entirely! Well. . . it's not like there's any room for special rules on the chart. Jury's out, imo.
Semi-related, why do the new Skorpek destroyers not have a -1 to hit with their S8 blade, when the Skorpek Destroyer Lord has a -1 to hit on it's blade. :/
the point is that prior to space marines 8.5 Space Marines where NOT the top army. IIRC Eldar where (suprise suprise )
They were still up there, upper-mid tier. And imperial guard were well up there as well. There were a couple Eldar lists that were very strong (probably alaitoc flyers, and Ynnari soup) but they've been completely killed off now.
The Newman wrote: The Cyclone Launcher was always 2d6 in Frag mode, it is and always has been just a twin-linked Missile Launcher.
What interests me is that suddenly the Power Sword, Power Axe, etc all being 5 points makes sense, I'll be very surprised if that S+1, Ap 3, D1 profile isn't standard over all the power weapons now. (They did the same thing going from 2nd to 3rd if I recall, there were a half dozen different profiles in 2nd but they were all lumped under "Power Weapon" in 3rd.)
Well even if it is codex changes won't be all that quick so many will be old stats for long while
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
Like multi melta change last year was errataed? Oh sorry they didn't.
And all armies obviously have terminators. Oh yes...oh sorry where's dark eldar terminators? Tau? Sob? Necron?
Where did I suggest xenos armies have terminators? Who even mentioned multimeltas?
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
Tell me again how that helps Necrons or Eldar or Sisters, or Orkz?
So chaos gets buffed to be just as bad relative to marines, while every other factions eat a big fat one.
Neat.
Ofc, none marine armies are absolute scum and exist purely for other players to curbstomp with their 3 wound terminators, they will also receive no updates or buffs. Of course lets pretend there isn't a massive necron release and their existing units are getting buffed.
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
They might, but it'll take time for those Codexes to get out. They didn't "FAQ" the Stormshields and explicitly said they'll wait for the Codex to update those. I assume that'd be the philosophy going forward.
If you happen to be the 8th-Ed. "Space Wolves" or "Genestealer Cult"-Equivalent of 9th Edition, you might not get a Codex "bringing you up to 9th Edition standards" for a year or two (especially how slowly GW seems to be rolling out the Marine / Necron book to kick things off).
Combined with Codex-specific Secondaries making it easier to play the missions for books that have a 9th Ed. Codex, it might be a tough year or two for the "late Codex armies" of 9th.
There is a chance, I'm hoping that like with bolter discipline this would be a big enough wtf discrepancy they'd roll it out via faq though.
Massively missing the point at every level, congrats
Galef wrote: Is this the 2nd instance we've seen a Flamer become 12"? Or was the Incendium cannon on the Invictor 12" before?
At any rate, I could see ALL Flamers becoming 12" now, especially since they cost the same as Meltaguns or Plasma now.
Flamers were only arbitrarily 8" before because the tear-drop shaped flame template was 8", but that worked vastly differently than Flamers in 8th/9th.
I've got my fingers crossed that Flamers become 12" across the board. At least for Imperials and Chaos. Eldar Flamers are still 5ppm so they could stay unchanged.
-
The Invictor flamer was 12" out of the box. One of the reasons why it's always been the auto-take weapon choice.
Unless you can do math.
No, I chose to ignore your point. Just because a marine rule changes, the default response doesn't have to be a pointless whine and cry about how neglected x faction is.
OOhhhhhhh. . . I missed that entirely! Well. . . it's not like there's any room for special rules on the chart. Jury's out, imo.
Semi-related, why do the new Skorpek destroyers not have a -1 to hit with their S8 blade, when the Skorpek Destroyer Lord has a -1 to hit on it's blade. :/
Probably because the Destroyer's Reap-blade is only S7 baseline — you have to use the Plasmacyte to boost it to S8, and risk destroying 1 of the 3 destroyers to do so.
OOhhhhhhh. . . I missed that entirely! Well. . . it's not like there's any room for special rules on the chart. Jury's out, imo.
Semi-related, why do the new Skorpek destroyers not have a -1 to hit with their S8 blade, when the Skorpek Destroyer Lord has a -1 to hit on it's blade. :/
Probably because the Destroyer's Reap-blade is only S7 baseline — you have to use the Plasmacyte to boost it to S8, and risk destroying 1 of the 3 destroyers to do so.
Yeah but the Destroyer Lord dude is gigantic. The -1 to hit just for being S8 seems sorta ridiculous.
So what would you do with marks? And I expect to be impressed with Undivided.
Mark's in reality should've unlocked more Strats . . .
Barf. Boooooooorrrrriiiiinnggggg.
You cut off the rest of the post but did you bother to read it at all? My guess is no. I'm also not incorrect that Marks were extremely limited in usefulness to many units, with Nurgle essentially always taken for universal usefulness and avoiding ID on HQ characters from S8-9 weapons.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...Mark's in reality should've unlocked more Strats (we got one for each mark and that's it, obviously a problem), the Icons (which need a rework anyway in terms of rules) and interactions with Daemons. Flat stat boosts is nice and all but it doesn't work with the design philosophy of 8th/9th.
From a design philosophy standpoint there's also the question of whether CSM need three "tiers" of unit (unmarked, marked, Cult). Go back to the 3.5e book and you'll find that the Marks have a lesser effect in a general army and a much greater effect in an army from one of the Cult Legions (WE, EC, TS, DG); that level of granularity made more sense back then when the game was smaller and more detailed, but 8e/9e is much more abstract. Stratagems, Icons, and maybe wargear (ex. CSM with the Mark of Khorne can replace chainswords with chainaxes, stuff like that) might make sense, stat buffs don't.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...Mark's in reality should've unlocked more Strats (we got one for each mark and that's it, obviously a problem), the Icons (which need a rework anyway in terms of rules) and interactions with Daemons. Flat stat boosts is nice and all but it doesn't work with the design philosophy of 8th/9th.
From a design philosophy standpoint there's also the question of whether CSM need three "tiers" of unit (unmarked, marked, Cult). Go back to the 3.5e book and you'll find that the Marks have a lesser effect in a general army and a much greater effect in an army from one of the Cult Legions (WE, EC, TS, DG); that level of granularity made more sense back then when the game was smaller and more detailed, but 8e/9e is much more abstract. Stratagems, Icons, and maybe wargear (ex. CSM with the Mark of Khorne can replace chainswords with chainaxes, stuff like that) might make sense, stat buffs don't.
There's also the question if Cult Legions need to specifically fit that stereotype. Obviously not all World Eaters can be Berserker Marines because they wouldn't get anything done. There was no issues with Thousand Sons not being all Rubric Marines throughout 6th-7th outside the badly written codex to begin with.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...There's also the question if Cult Legions need to specifically fit that stereotype. Obviously not all World Eaters can be Berserker Marines because they wouldn't get anything done. There was no issues with Thousand Sons not being all Rubric Marines throughout 6th-7th outside the badly written codex to begin with.
Maybe? Part of the issue there is that if someone from the same gene-seed as one of the Cult Legions didn't get that Legion's signature modifications (Mortarion's bargain with Nurgle, the Rubric, the Butcher's Nails, whatever weird experiments the Emperor's Children have been doing) then that Legion's special rules might not be the best thing to represent them. Fluffwise the Legions don't necessarily need to fit the stereotype, but rules-wise it's much easier to build the Rubric into the Thousand Sons' unique rules/units than try and build Thousand Sons rules and Rubric rules separately.
Voss wrote: But what's the 'Primaris only, oldmarines Legends now' narrative going to do in the face of such aggressive provocation?
Continue to wonder how heavy those goal posts really are, given how often they're moved.
Terminators aren't "oldmarines". Terminators are Terminators. Unlike "oldmarines", Terminators still appear in big group photos throughout the new rule book where as the "oldmarines" are far harder to find, usually only showing up when GW is showing off Ravenwing bikers.
They aren't primaris, ergo they're old marines. They surfaced way back near the beginning at the RT/2nd edition changeover,
They have the same biology as their power armor brethren, and none of the Cawl upgrades, nor any of his even more better guns.
If you want to split hairs on Terminators being somehow a distinct thing, feel free, but you're going to have to shoulder those goalposts all on your lonesome.
My point is simply that these are old models that are getting improved, not squatted, regardless of the usual spate of horror stories about the impending miniature apocalypse.
They're still making new Terminator models. They're not making new regular Marine models anymore.
Terminators still appear in photography/artwork. Regular Marines are becoming more and more rare.
It's clear that GW thinks of Terminators separately from regular Marines. To deny this, and to deny that regular Marines are being pushed further and further towards the edges of the frame is to deny reality itself.
Terminators are the only category of oldmarines that has never got a Primaris replacement. Adding an additional wound feels like just making them Primaris too, anyway. It's what they should have done with everybody instead of releasing new Primaris models just different enough to not be able to "counts as," but Gee-dubs had to get space marine players to rebuy their armies somehow.
I don't know why Terminators seem to have escaped the general oldmarine cull, but I'm thankful for it.
it looks like GW have decided to go down the 'wounds = veteran' line.
Those ADmech flying guys are 2 wounds, they added wounds to necron elite units. The bladeguard veterans are 3 wounds each, which is 'veteran' on top of the primaris 2 wounds.
Now terminators have an extra wound - which I am pretty sure will be the baseline profile and not the armour.
That is, the armour still grants 1 wound, but because the terminators are first company veterans, they will have 2 wounds base.
I wouldn't be surprised if they make all veteran firstborn have primaris profiles.
this potentially bodes well for armies like the eldar whose aspects really need a pick me up, and 2 wounds 2 attacks each would help immensely.
Hellebore wrote: it looks like GW have decided to go down the 'wounds = veteran' line.
Those ADmech flying guys are 2 wounds, they added wounds to necron elite units. The bladeguard veterans are 3 wounds each, which is 'veteran' on top of the primaris 2 wounds.
Now terminators have an extra wound - which I am pretty sure will be the baseline profile and not the armour.
That is, the armour still grants 1 wound, but because the terminators are first company veterans, they will have 2 wounds base.
I wouldn't be surprised if they make all veteran firstborn have primaris profiles.
this potentially bodes well for armies like the eldar whose aspects really need a pick me up, and 2 wounds 2 attacks each would help immensely.
The implications are so confusing. I mean we had the 2W mini-marine rumor not long ago and that seemed totally impossible....now not so much, but then the current points have to be placeholder numbers until the codex. It also makes the Heavy Bolter going to D2 make some more sense.
Ultimately this will be a massive shake up, but we'll all be waiting for codexes to get on board. :\
Hellebore wrote: it looks like GW have decided to go down the 'wounds = veteran' line.
Those ADmech flying guys are 2 wounds, they added wounds to necron elite units. The bladeguard veterans are 3 wounds each, which is 'veteran' on top of the primaris 2 wounds.
Now terminators have an extra wound - which I am pretty sure will be the baseline profile and not the armour.
That is, the armour still grants 1 wound, but because the terminators are first company veterans, they will have 2 wounds base.
I wouldn't be surprised if they make all veteran firstborn have primaris profiles.
this potentially bodes well for armies like the eldar whose aspects really need a pick me up, and 2 wounds 2 attacks each would help immensely.
The implications are so confusing. I mean we had the 2W mini-marine rumor not long ago and that seemed totally impossible....now not so much, but then the current points have to be placeholder numbers until the codex. It also makes the Heavy Bolter going to D2 make some more sense.
Ultimately this will be a massive shake up, but we'll all be waiting for codexes to get on board. :\
Keep in mind if the theory holds it's only veterans. So van vets, sternguard, Chosen, aspects, etc. So not all Trueborn marines. And, yeah, that codex wait will be a long one, especially when other factions have already gotten theirs. Sounds like that "arms race" you're always talking about doesn't it?
@Eldarain: Good one! Glad to be your straight man.
Hellebore wrote: it looks like GW have decided to go down the 'wounds = veteran' line.
Those ADmech flying guys are 2 wounds, they added wounds to necron elite units. The bladeguard veterans are 3 wounds each, which is 'veteran' on top of the primaris 2 wounds.
Now terminators have an extra wound - which I am pretty sure will be the baseline profile and not the armour.
That is, the armour still grants 1 wound, but because the terminators are first company veterans, they will have 2 wounds base.
I wouldn't be surprised if they make all veteran firstborn have primaris profiles.
this potentially bodes well for armies like the eldar whose aspects really need a pick me up, and 2 wounds 2 attacks each would help immensely.
The implications are so confusing. I mean we had the 2W mini-marine rumor not long ago and that seemed totally impossible....now not so much, but then the current points have to be placeholder numbers until the codex. It also makes the Heavy Bolter going to D2 make some more sense.
Ultimately this will be a massive shake up, but we'll all be waiting for codexes to get on board. :\
Look I'm hoping, but I've been disappointed a lot before. extra wounds on units is an indirect way to reduce the game's lethality without changing weapon profiles or rules - suddenly units can tank twice the incoming fire.
Indirect evidence coming from a range of weapons getting 2dam shots going forward. So rather than step away from 2dam as people complained about the lethality against primaris, they're leaning into it....
The extra wound really wasn't the fix with Terminators but whatever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hellebore wrote: it looks like GW have decided to go down the 'wounds = veteran' line.
Those ADmech flying guys are 2 wounds, they added wounds to necron elite units. The bladeguard veterans are 3 wounds each, which is 'veteran' on top of the primaris 2 wounds.
Now terminators have an extra wound - which I am pretty sure will be the baseline profile and not the armour.
That is, the armour still grants 1 wound, but because the terminators are first company veterans, they will have 2 wounds base.
I wouldn't be surprised if they make all veteran firstborn have primaris profiles.
this potentially bodes well for armies like the eldar whose aspects really need a pick me up, and 2 wounds 2 attacks each would help immensely.
Ofc, none marine armies are absolute scum and exist purely for other players to curbstomp with their 3 wound terminators, they will also receive no updates or buffs. Of course lets pretend there isn't a massive necron release and their existing units are getting buffed.
I know you're saying this facetiously, but... xenos have been in a bad place for a long time now, and have barely had any decent updates in ... I don't even know how long.
Necrons getting an update now is a big deal, but it's too little too late. And you say it as if suddenly necrons are going to be a force to be reckoned with, but they were the worst army in the game for years, and their new update (so far) may barely be enough to put them into the levels of average at best.
Space marines need a massive series of nerfs and points reductions, to be brought in line with everyone else. Instead... they're getting 50% more durable terminators, and +1 strength on weapons that were already better than most armies have access to for the points.
You don't know how long? The Codex: Space marine version 2 came out last August. Barely a year ago. You have the memory of a gold fish.
Uuuhh....He says he doesn't remember when XENOS got decent update. What does marine codex version 2 have got to do with that? So marines got one in last august. When did xenos get major update? GSC got semi decent, orks got bunch of buggies...what else?
the point is that prior to space marines 8.5 Space Marines where NOT the top army. IIRC Eldar where (suprise suprise )
That's not the point at all. The point is about xenos consistently being ignored (and/or getting shafted) in favor of marines when it comes to model/rule updates, not about who is top tier.
I mean, it's in the term xenos already. We're comparing all non-human factions grouped together to a single human subfaction. Would you honestly defend the status quo so zealously if the tables were turned?
So what would you do with marks? And I expect to be impressed with Undivided.
Mark's in reality should've unlocked more Strats . . .
Barf. Boooooooorrrrriiiiinnggggg.
God this. I'm so sick of the character of armies being hidden behind a limited resource. It makes everything so bland.
Eh, in theory there'd be nothing wrong with Mark-specific 0CP strats - OK, you could only use them once per turn/phase (sorry, my mind just went blank), but at least they'd be available every turn, while still restricted to the units that they thematically fit with.
The implications are so confusing. I mean we had the 2W mini-marine rumor not long ago and that seemed totally impossible....now not so much, but then the current points have to be placeholder numbers until the codex. It also makes the Heavy Bolter going to D2 make some more sense.
Ultimately this will be a massive shake up, but we'll all be waiting for codexes to get on board. :\
I'm beginning to wonder if the uncertainty itself is the problem. 9th edition seems to have brought a nice box of models (if you care about those factions) and a lot of question marks and uncertainty.
Which has led into frustration and complaint spirals based off of unknowns.
All the FAQs and whatnot are done, but people are more concerned about the fragments of future changes (on assembly guides, pictures, etc) than anything else.
40k seems to need a solid roadmap of what's going on, just so every discussion can stop devolving into the now-usual mess.
So what would you do with marks? And I expect to be impressed with Undivided.
Mark's in reality should've unlocked more Strats . . .
Barf. Boooooooorrrrriiiiinnggggg.
God this. I'm so sick of the character of armies being hidden behind a limited resource. It makes everything so bland.
Eh, in theory there'd be nothing wrong with Mark-specific 0CP strats - OK, you could only use them once per turn/phase (sorry, my mind just went blank), but at least they'd be available every turn, while still restricted to the units that they thematically fit with.
Why not just make it a special rule on the unit that says "once per phase" then?
So what would you do with marks? And I expect to be impressed with Undivided.
Mark's in reality should've unlocked more Strats . . .
Barf. Boooooooorrrrriiiiinnggggg.
God this. I'm so sick of the character of armies being hidden behind a limited resource. It makes everything so bland.
Eh, in theory there'd be nothing wrong with Mark-specific 0CP strats - OK, you could only use them once per turn/phase (sorry, my mind just went blank), but at least they'd be available every turn, while still restricted to the units that they thematically fit with.
Why not just make it a special rule on the unit that says "once per phase" then?
Everyone with a Mark is sharing in the blessings of their god, and those blessings are finite?
I was throwing it out there as a way Slayer's idea could be crowbar'd into shape.
Strange that the Plasma Pistol doesn't have an Overcharge profile ... they showed both profiles for the Missile Launchers on Terminators ... I wonder if the pistol version is losing Overcharge?
Khorzain wrote: Strange that the Plasma Pistol doesn't have an Overcharge profile ... they showed both profiles for the Missile Launchers on Terminators ... I wonder if the pistol version is losing Overcharge?
I put it down to the condensed statlines. Maybe "gets hot" gets changed to "+1S, +1D" or something like that to genercize it.
Scot, that's sounding suspiciously like one of them filthy universal rules, everyone knows only commies or socialists like them an - you... You're not a commie or socialist... are you?
Eonfuzz wrote: Scot, that's sounding suspiciously like one of them filthy universal rules, everyone knows only commies or socialists like them an - you... You're not a commie or socialist... are you?
It isn't a universal rule if you make it a special bespoke rule that just happens to be the same on all the datasheets but everybody has to wait to get theirs until their codex launches and then you might forget to change a couple of them to it here and there but that's not a big deal or confusing it's fine.
Sure does look like they are killing off firstborn marines
Perhaps not. They’ll still be behind, though. We haven’t seen non-Veteran marine stats yet. Primaris Bladeguard are three wounds, yes? Terminators and V Vets here have gained wounds while Assault Intercessors are still two wounds. It looks like marine Veterans are gaining an additional wound while non-veterans are staying the same. I hope the supposed Veteran Intercessor unit follows suit as well as Deathwatch Veterans.
ERJAK wrote: Whelp, hopefully everybody has a marine army ready. Or at least a different game they can switch to for a year or so.
Cause unless there are some pretty massive rules/points nerfs on the way...it's gonna be bad for a while.
Don't forget Necrons are coming out too. So there's potential for there to be a Xenos counter to Marines.
Necrons were on par with Marines in 7th, so there's hope.
Also many of these changes SHOULD be errata'd to apply to Chaos Marines too, since so many of them are 1:1 exactly the same unit/weapon.
ERJAK wrote: Whelp, hopefully everybody has a marine army ready. Or at least a different game they can switch to for a year or so.
Cause unless there are some pretty massive rules/points nerfs on the way...it's gonna be bad for a while.
Don't forget Necrons are coming out too. So there's potential for there to be a Xenos counter to Marines.
Necrons were on par with Marines in 7th, so there's hope.
Also many of these changes SHOULD be errata'd to apply to Chaos Marines too, since so many of them are 1:1 exactly the same unit/weapon.
-
Given GW's promotional video regarding the release, and the new statlines we've seen with a mix of small buffs and small nerfs, I'm not holding my breath that Necrons will be anything more than designated punching bags in their new book, lol.
the_scotsman wrote: Given GW's promotional video regarding the release, and the new statlines we've seen with a mix of small buffs and small nerfs, I'm not holding my breath that Necrons will be anything more than designated punching bags in their new book, lol.
It looks to me that GW is trying to make a distinct difference between power of a Space Marine compared to other races.
SMs are basically becoming an army of multi wound models.
I think they are trying to make it so small arms fire is not good against them but multi damage weapons are.
But those multi damage weapons will be bad against a lot of other armies with a lot of single wound models.
|I think they are trying to make it so high rate of fire vs high damage will be a proper choice in future.
Will it work out? Who knows, but it looks like that is the direction to me
Dudeface wrote: Quote from Armillion over on B&C "Also, opened one of the new box style vindicators last week and saw that HK missiles are apparently S10 now?"
Once upon a time HK Missiles were actually special. They were a vehicle card (vehicle upgrades were done with cards similar to Wargear Cards in 2nd Edition 40K), and the HK missile was basically a one-shot Krak missile that was just overall more dangerous than your run-of-the-mill missile launcher.
So them going to S10 to make them special one-shot weapons again seems like a good idea to me.
So, not seeing any other changes to the Vindicator. So, does not seem vehicles are seeing the "universal vehicle wounds increase to account for the higher damage weaponry"
You go from needing 7 BS3+ multimeltas to kill a vindicator on average rolling, to 3.
the_scotsman wrote: So, not seeing any other changes to the Vindicator. So, does not seem vehicles are seeing the "universal vehicle wounds increase to account for the higher damage weaponry"
You go from needing 7 BS3+ multimeltas to kill a vindicator on average rolling, to 3.
Nobody was using mltimelta outside sisters though so I don't mind that if pointed appropriately. Need 3 wounds to get through from inside 12", 6 hits, 9 shots so either 5 multimelta or 10 melta guns.
Edit: I'm an idiot it's 2 wounds, average damage being 3.5+2, total of 11
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Not sure what the point of making them S10 is besides to just wound Knights slightly easier. There isn't exactly a lot of great T5 targets.
And Monoliths and Land Raider and Morkanauts and ...
the_scotsman wrote: So, not seeing any other changes to the Vindicator. So, does not seem vehicles are seeing the "universal vehicle wounds increase to account for the higher damage weaponry"
You go from needing 7 BS3+ multimeltas to kill a vindicator on average rolling, to 3.
Nobody was using mltimelta outside sisters though so I don't mind that if pointed appropriately. Need 3 wounds to get through from inside 12", 6 hits, 9 shots so either 5 multimelta or 10 melta guns.
No, not 5. 3. With average rolling, you need to shoot 3 multimeltas from melta range to destroy the vindicator.
They nearly tripled the firepower of a multimelta with the new rules.
the_scotsman wrote: So, not seeing any other changes to the Vindicator. So, does not seem vehicles are seeing the "universal vehicle wounds increase to account for the higher damage weaponry"
You go from needing 7 BS3+ multimeltas to kill a vindicator on average rolling, to 3.
Nobody was using mltimelta outside sisters though so I don't mind that if pointed appropriately. Need 3 wounds to get through from inside 12", 6 hits, 9 shots so either 5 multimelta or 10 melta guns.
No, not 5. 3. With average rolling, you need to shoot 3 multimeltas from melta range to destroy the vindicator.
They nearly tripled the firepower of a multimelta with the new rules.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Not sure what the point of making them S10 is besides to just wound Knights slightly easier. There isn't exactly a lot of great T5 targets.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Not sure what the point of making them S10 is besides to just wound Knights slightly easier. There isn't exactly a lot of great T5 targets.
my bad.