Could this be the first look at the much speculated emperors children codex and models?

Probably not Emperor's Children, no. We saw that a January coin from the new GW 'in-store' incentives is a Hedonites of Slaanesh one.

Death Guard seem a lock though.

Decadence is probably Hedonites for AOS, and Decay is Death Guard for 40k.

*sad OP who forgot Age of Sigmar exists noises*

It's amazing how long it's taking them to make the obvious move of codexing and deamon primarching up Emps Kids and World Eaters. I know those models take some designing but I Imagine they also sell like hot cakes to collectors and gamers alike.

Dai wrote:
It's amazing how long it's taking them to make the obvious move of codexing and deamon primarching up Emps Kids and World Eaters. I know those models take some designing but I Imagine they also sell like hot cakes to collectors and gamers alike.

Listen, they have to do Marines, then green marines, then black-and-silver (not to be confused with black-and-white) marines, then dog marines, then red marines.

They have a lot to get through, be patient.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dai wrote:
It's amazing how long it's taking them to make the obvious move of codexing and deamon primarching up Emps Kids and World Eaters. I know those models take some designing but I Imagine they also sell like hot cakes to collectors and gamers alike.

Listen, they have to do Marines, then green marines, then black-and-silver (not to be confused with black-and-white) marines, then dog marines, then red marines.

They have a lot to get through, be patient.

Well but by the time those are done then the other green marines, blue marines, gray marines, white marines, black-and-white marines, other-black-and-silver marines, and yellow-but-somtimes-blue-and-red marines will be out of date! You can't expect them to not have an update to get them in line with the dog marines green marines red marines silver marines and first black and silver marines can you??

Everyone forgets the silver marines and the gold marines.

 SagesStone wrote:
Everyone forgets the silver marines and the gold marines.

Given the gold marines aren't marines, it's reasonable to forget them in this context.

 Dysartes wrote:

 SagesStone wrote:
Everyone forgets the silver marines and the gold marines.

Given the gold marines aren't marines, it's reasonable to forget them in this context.

The Silver Skulls and the Brazen Minotaurs aren't Marines?

Technically the gold marines are marine-ier marines.

There new bone marines in the next issue of white dwarf

mrFickle wrote:
There new one marines in the next issue of white dward

Oh right, the Sand Marines.

So anyways, that's why you're waiting for attention on the other factions, Dai.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
There new one marines in the next issue of white dward

Oh right, the Sand Marines.

So anyways, that's why you're waiting for attention on the other factions, Dai.

Nope just seen that us lucky ducks are getting another SM index!!!!

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dai wrote:
It's amazing how long it's taking them to make the obvious move of codexing and deamon primarching up Emps Kids and World Eaters. I know those models take some designing but I Imagine they also sell like hot cakes to collectors and gamers alike.

Listen, they have to do Marines, then green marines, then black-and-silver (not to be confused with black-and-white) marines, then dog marines, then red marines.

They have a lot to get through, be patient.

Well but by the time those are done then the other green marines, blue marines, gray marines, white marines, black-and-white marines, other-black-and-silver marines, and yellow-but-somtimes-blue-and-red marines will be out of date! You can't expect them to not have an update to get them in line with the dog marines green marines red marines silver marines and first black and silver marines can you??

I wouldn’t be surprised if we got 1 Codex, 1 SM Supplement each month for the whole of next year tbh...

After DA in Jan, they’ve got BT needing a supplement and then I’m sure they’re going to want to give all the new goodies to the old ones...

Also gives them something to tie the inevitable constant stream of marine releases to.

mrFickle wrote:
There new bone marines in the next issue of white dwarf

Huh, are we actually getting updated gak for LotD?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
There new bone marines in the next issue of white dwarf

Huh, are we actually getting updated gak for LotD?

Unfortunately not - an index for the WD Chapter the Tome Keepers instead.

Oh right, sand marines were in this White Dwarf, sorry.

it's hard to keep all the different factions in this game straight some times, what with them all being marines.

EDIT:
Unless, by bone marines and sand marines we meant the same marines, in which case, I acknowledge that I may have been confused. Marine marines!

 Dysartes wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
There new bone marines in the next issue of white dwarf

Huh, are we actually getting updated gak for LotD?

Unfortunately not - an index for the WD Chapter the Tome Keepers instead.

Oh. Well that's disappointing. Incredibly so.

Well it's good to see that WD is giving some much needed support to the woefully underrepresented loyalist space marines.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well it's good to see that WD is giving some much needed support to the woefully underrepresented loyalist space marines.

I dunno man, the shark marines don't have Space Marines riding Sharks yet, but the dog marines have Space Marines riding Dogs. When will we see support for shark marines??? It's disappointing to see such factions neglected.

love how the White Dwarf article is about making your own home brew marine chapter. "Just look at what we have done! Also we made a bespoke datasheet for a unique character that you cannot do so don't even worry about that home brewing thing! feth your dudes!"

Well it does mean that we are getting a Power Axe Primaris Captain which means more relic access. Meh.

 Lance845 wrote:
love how the White Dwarf article is about making your own home brew marine chapter. "Just look at what we have done! Also we made a bespoke datasheet for a unique character that you cannot do so don't even worry about that home brewing thing! feth your dudes!"

Yeah and as if people haven’t been doing this since rogue trader

What would be nice is if they stopped with the bespoke bs and actually put in robust tools to build "named characters". Then, build their own named characters using those rules. That way we are working with the same tools as the developers and can actually build our own home brew "chapter"/hivefleet/regiment/etc...

 Lance845 wrote:
What would be nice is if they stopped with the bespoke bs and actually put in robust tools to build "named characters". Then, build their own named characters using those rules. That way we are working with the same tools as the developers and can actually build our own home brew "chapter"/hivefleet/regiment/etc...

Eh I remember the old Tyranid one. It's a dream for any min-max power-player; a confusing nightmare for others. The problem is even with a custom engine only certain builds would rise to the top as powerful. By which point you're just getting dozens of people picking the same rough choices from the list.

 Overread wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
What would be nice is if they stopped with the bespoke bs and actually put in robust tools to build "named characters". Then, build their own named characters using those rules. That way we are working with the same tools as the developers and can actually build our own home brew "chapter"/hivefleet/regiment/etc...

Eh I remember the old Tyranid one. It's a dream for any min-max power-player; a confusing nightmare for others. The problem is even with a custom engine only certain builds would rise to the top as powerful. By which point you're just getting dozens of people picking the same rough choices from the list.

1) that is an example of a poorly made one. Usually with a bloat of options that have clear winners and loosers competing for the same job.

2) How is that any different from right now at the unit level? "THIS named character is a better x than x so why ever take X when you can just have bespoke datasheet."

 Lance845 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
What would be nice is if they stopped with the bespoke bs and actually put in robust tools to build "named characters". Then, build their own named characters using those rules. That way we are working with the same tools as the developers and can actually build our own home brew "chapter"/hivefleet/regiment/etc...

Eh I remember the old Tyranid one. It's a dream for any min-max power-player; a confusing nightmare for others. The problem is even with a custom engine only certain builds would rise to the top as powerful. By which point you're just getting dozens of people picking the same rough choices from the list.

1) that is an example of a poorly made one. Usually with a bloat of options that have clear winners and loosers competing for the same job.

2) How is that any different from right now at the unit level? "THIS named character is a better x than x so why ever take X when you can just have bespoke datasheet."

Well this is GW, after 30 odd years I know that they won't make a perfectly balanced one.
And the difference is at least with the unit level choices you have a specific model for each choice. If you introduce a custom system then either you're forced to convert or the custom options only relate to model deisgns build already. So you then have a system that's mostly what we have now just with a load more upgrade options that don't appear on the model.

WYSIWYG isn't a rule. + convert away.

And no. The only difference between that and what we have now is home brew is just "counts as X chapter" because you need/want the bespoke rules instead of actually being able to craft your own.

I would rather we all be able to craft our own.

 Lance845 wrote:
WYSIWYG isn't a rule. + convert away.

It might not be a rule but its an expectation most gamers have and it has been a rule for many years and is also a rule in many other wargames. Not universal but its pretty commonplace. Also there's a difference between a system that supports converting and one that requires converting (or perhaps requires converting to get access to a full roster/the best options). Heck if GW wanted to go and make Necromunda style leader models for each army I'm all for that; just not if we have to do it ourselves

It hasn't been a rule for many years. It wasn't even a rule in 7th which came out over 6 years ago. And it wasn't actually in 6th either which is 8 years old. So when you are talking about something that hasn't been a rule for almost a decade I would say get over it.

I can agree that a good customizable kit should be available to people. Lots of extra bits just to look neat with no actual purpose. Few different heads. Different arms for different poses. A robust weapon sprue.

Eh I guess I've never noticed it not being in the book because its just such a normal expectation people have in general at games. From casual locals to tournaments.

It's a hang up ingrained in older players that they pass on to newer players in communities where newer players may or may not care what they think.

These days I actively encourage modeling things how ever they want them to look with an understanding that you don't confuse your opponent. If they all have the same gun then make sure thats clear. But if you have a sweet sword then model a sweet sword. If it's a singular character then it doesn't matter how it's equipped to it's model because there is no other unit to confuse it with.

My tyranid prime is a heavily modified spawn of cryptus with monstrous scytal and a biocanon I made with extra bits to represent a relic that hasn't existed for 2 editions. So I can equip it with bone swords and a death spitter and it doesn't matter.

Dai wrote:
It's amazing how long it's taking them to make the obvious move of codexing and deamon primarching up Emps Kids and World Eaters. I know those models take some designing but I Imagine they also sell like hot cakes to collectors and gamers alike.

Any such models have been done for years. They just can't dump everything in the pipe all at once - especially not with Primaris in the way.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well it's good to see that WD is giving some much needed support to the woefully underrepresented loyalist space marines.

I dunno man, the shark marines don't have Space Marines riding Sharks yet, but the dog marines have Space Marines riding Dogs. When will we see support for shark marines??? It's disappointing to see such factions neglected.

I wouldn't count any chickens on getting Shark Marines riding sharks, Vampire Marines have been around a fair bit longer than Dog Marines and we still don't have Vampire Marines riding Vampires. And it's still a better love story than Twilight.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well it's good to see that WD is giving some much needed support to the woefully underrepresented loyalist space marines.

I dunno man, the shark marines don't have Space Marines riding Sharks yet, but the dog marines have Space Marines riding Dogs. When will we see support for shark marines??? It's disappointing to see such factions neglected.

well, we have flying sharks in AOS...it's only a matter of time my dude.

 bullyboy wrote:


well, we have flying sharks in AOS...it's only a matter of time my dude.

New thread idea: "Are Marines taking up release slots that could be better spent on Marines?"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:


well, we have flying sharks in AOS...it's only a matter of time my dude.

New thread idea: "Are Marines taking up release slots that could be better spent on Marines?"

How DARE you suggest that marines are taking up too many release slots - Marines make way more money for GW than Marines anyway, and besides, Marines just got a HUGE release, they should wait their turn. Marines are actually totally distinct from Marines, whereas Marines are just a one-note subfaction. Marines have been totally distinct since before RT - I should know, I was an old grognard even back then, so my opinion automatically counts more. Marines have been a fan favorite for years, and it's about time their outdated rules and models got some love, especially as Marines have already had so much stuff. I think the Marines line has only just started being fleshed out properly, and really Marines need more, much more than Marines, who are a much less iconic army, and should have their forgeworld legacy rules scrapped, and then be squatted entirely. Nobody even plays marines, whereas I think you'll find every player owns at least one Marines army.

Knock it off please, we dont need yet another thread degenerating into the same cesspit as the last few and it would be nice if we could actually keep a 40k N&R thread on topic. For once.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
What would be nice is if they stopped with the bespoke bs and actually put in robust tools to build "named characters". Then, build their own named characters using those rules. That way we are working with the same tools as the developers and can actually build our own home brew "chapter"/hivefleet/regiment/etc...

Eh I remember the old Tyranid one. It's a dream for any min-max power-player; a confusing nightmare for others. The problem is even with a custom engine only certain builds would rise to the top as powerful. By which point you're just getting dozens of people picking the same rough choices from the list.

1) that is an example of a poorly made one. Usually with a bloat of options that have clear winners and loosers competing for the same job.

2) How is that any different from right now at the unit level? "THIS named character is a better x than x so why ever take X when you can just have bespoke datasheet."

I'd absolutely love this. Instead of tying unique abilities to named characters/subfactions/units you could instead allow players to create their own, with selectable abilities. It could go for force org and other choices too, and could indeed mean a reincarnation of my beloved build-a-nid codex. This does require strict balancing (I'm sure the old nid dex was easy to break, I was just too young and bereft of internet to know. Instead I knew all the biomorph, unit and weapon costs and built themed lists on a notepad from memory during bus rides. Man I loved that dex.).

....Are those Sand Marines new models, or have I just completely and utterly lost track of marine releases such that I've missed a librarian, chaplain, captain, and ancient sculpt somehow?

the_scotsman wrote:
....Are those Sand Marines new models, or have I just completely and utterly lost track of marine releases such that I've missed a librarian, chaplain, captain, and ancient sculpt somehow?

I think it’s just a new chapter to demonstrate how to use codex SM to make your own chapter. But they have released an official index for this chapter as far as I am aware

mrFickle wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
....Are those Sand Marines new models, or have I just completely and utterly lost track of marine releases such that I've missed a librarian, chaplain, captain, and ancient sculpt somehow?

I think it’s just a new chapter to demonstrate how to use codex SM to make your own chapter. But they have released an official index for this chapter as far as I am aware

Sure, but I feel like I would have seen that guy with the giant mace, or the dude with the huge book eagle thingy before. Are they just extremely elaborate kitbashes then?

Isn't it just basic marine characters with parts from the custodes model line. Like the ax, the banner, the two handed mace chaplain is the old chaplain with a different head and different set of arms.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well it's good to see that WD is giving some much needed support to the woefully underrepresented loyalist space marines.

I dunno man, the shark marines don't have Space Marines riding Sharks yet, but the dog marines have Space Marines riding Dogs. When will we see support for shark marines??? It's disappointing to see such factions neglected.

Get a few of these, replace the pointy-ears with a shark marine, use the TWC datasheet for rules and poof, Space Marines riding sharks.

Karol wrote:
Isn't it just basic marine characters with parts from the custodes model line. Like the ax, the banner, the two handed mace chaplain is the old chaplain with a different head and different set of arms.

The Ancient might be, that eagle does seem like a kitbash with the thing from the custode vexilla. Why do I feel like the chaplain with the big hammer and the staff libby got previewed at some point...

Lots of fake rumours flying about.

Maybe the "Decadence" is Ynnari since Ynnead is just three Slaanesh Daemons in a trenchcoat.

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Isn't it just basic marine characters with parts from the custodes model line. Like the ax, the banner, the two handed mace chaplain is the old chaplain with a different head and different set of arms.

The Ancient might be, that eagle does seem like a kitbash with the thing from the custode vexilla. Why do I feel like the chaplain with the big hammer and the staff libby got previewed at some point...

The Chaplain with the big hammer is just a Deathwatch 2h hammer with the head coming from a Deathwing Knight mace head.
The Librarian uses Tigurius' arm up to the elbow for the staff posing. Then it uses the standard plastic Primaris Librarian hand, with the sword cut out and replaced with the staff from the plastic Librarian in Power Armor(the one that came with the goofy cherub thing).

There's a lot of conversion and finnickiness that went into these characters.

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Isn't it just basic marine characters with parts from the custodes model line. Like the ax, the banner, the two handed mace chaplain is the old chaplain with a different head and different set of arms.

The Ancient might be, that eagle does seem like a kitbash with the thing from the custode vexilla. Why do I feel like the chaplain with the big hammer and the staff libby got previewed at some point...

The Chaplain with the big hammer is just a Deathwatch 2h hammer with the head coming from a Deathwing Knight mace head.
The Librarian uses Tigurius' arm up to the elbow for the staff posing. Then it uses the standard plastic Primaris Librarian hand, with the sword cut out and replaced with the staff from the plastic Librarian in Power Armor(the one that came with the goofy cherub thing).

There's a lot of conversion and finnickiness that went into these characters.

I must just be misremembering the plastic librarian with the goofy cherub then.

I'd love to see a Mortals Slaanesh cultist kit for AoS, like the Blood Reavers for Khorne, and the Karak acolytes for Tzeentch. Slaanesh is the only of the four gods without mortal 'battleline' unit. Would be great conversion fodder for 40k too.

Maybe we'll see a new Death army announced for AoS too. Maybe a Deathwalker battletome full of new zombie kits and corpse carts, or Soulblight fits the 'decadent' theme too.

 jaredb wrote:
I'd love to see a Mortals Slaanesh cultist kit for AoS, like the Blood Reavers for Khorne, and the Karak acolytes for Tzeentch. Slaanesh is the only of the four gods without mortal 'battleline' unit. Would be great conversion fodder for 40k too.

Maybe we'll see a new Death army announced for AoS too. Maybe a Deathwalker battletome full of new zombie kits and corpse carts, or Soulblight fits the 'decadent' theme too.

yeah, that'd be cool, particularly because those immediately make for a 'stealth cultist unit' for 40k. I use my kairics as my cultists for my tsons army.

Pandabeer wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well it's good to see that WD is giving some much needed support to the woefully underrepresented loyalist space marines.

I dunno man, the shark marines don't have Space Marines riding Sharks yet, but the dog marines have Space Marines riding Dogs. When will we see support for shark marines??? It's disappointing to see such factions neglected.

Get a few of these, replace the pointy-ears with a shark marine, use the TWC datasheet for rules and poof, Space Marines riding sharks.

But my army can't be unique or fun without bespoke rules for every little thing, and sharks are clearly different from wolves. UGH.


On topic:
I think Decadence really is just AOS. If it turns out any Slaanesh or even Slaanesh-adjacent stuff is coming out for 40k I'll eat my hat. Even when slaanesh was updated for AOS with a slew of new models, an entire range revision including a terrain piece, an epic KoS model, a new special character, new types of creatures (hello living mirror), they got rules for 40k essentially written on the back of a napkin. I was using box datasheets for my units.

This new Index Astartes: Sand Marines has more content than the Slaanesh model range revamp has in 40k.

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Isn't it just basic marine characters with parts from the custodes model line. Like the ax, the banner, the two handed mace chaplain is the old chaplain with a different head and different set of arms.

The Ancient might be, that eagle does seem like a kitbash with the thing from the custode vexilla. Why do I feel like the chaplain with the big hammer and the staff libby got previewed at some point...

The Chaplain with the big hammer is just a Deathwatch 2h hammer with the head coming from a Deathwing Knight mace head.
The Librarian uses Tigurius' arm up to the elbow for the staff posing. Then it uses the standard plastic Primaris Librarian hand, with the sword cut out and replaced with the staff from the plastic Librarian in Power Armor(the one that came with the goofy cherub thing).

There's a lot of conversion and finnickiness that went into these characters.

There was at least one conversion guide in the WD articles, describing in detail how the... Captain (I think) was converted.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Isn't it just basic marine characters with parts from the custodes model line. Like the ax, the banner, the two handed mace chaplain is the old chaplain with a different head and different set of arms.

The Ancient might be, that eagle does seem like a kitbash with the thing from the custode vexilla. Why do I feel like the chaplain with the big hammer and the staff libby got previewed at some point...

The Chaplain with the big hammer is just a Deathwatch 2h hammer with the head coming from a Deathwing Knight mace head.
The Librarian uses Tigurius' arm up to the elbow for the staff posing. Then it uses the standard plastic Primaris Librarian hand, with the sword cut out and replaced with the staff from the plastic Librarian in Power Armor(the one that came with the goofy cherub thing).

There's a lot of conversion and finnickiness that went into these characters.

There was at least one conversion guide in the WD articles, describing in detail how the... Captain (I think) was converted.

yeah if you've been following whtie dwarf they've shown all sorts of neatstuff about putting this chapter together

 BaconCatBug wrote:


Maybe the "Decadence" is Ynnari since Ynnead is just three Slaanesh Daemons in a trenchcoat.

Avatar of ynnead = 3 demonettes in a trentchcoat...

Ha... haha... haaaaaa... Thats made my day. Well its not wrong.

My money is on DE if anything at all in terms of 40k.
I think its 40k turn to get major previews now though isint it ?

I think the trend I noticed is a rotation of specialist - Warcry, necromunda, BSF etc. --> 40k --> Specialist - Bloodbowl, Aeornautica, titanicus --> AOS

There been soooo much stuff dropping its flabbergasting and Ive lost track and probably just talking out of my ass mostly...
They are really cranking it out.

Would love to buy more WD but it just doesnt cater to stuff Im interested in which is sad.
Love excuses to look at pictures :p The quins PA one and orks was a greta issue.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well it's good to see that WD is giving some much needed support to the woefully underrepresented loyalist space marines.

I dunno man, the shark marines don't have Space Marines riding Sharks yet, but the dog marines have Space Marines riding Dogs. When will we see support for shark marines??? It's disappointing to see such factions neglected.

well, we have flying sharks in AOS...it's only a matter of time my dude.

We could use the Sigmar sharks as bikes!

Or make a SW successor chapter who's thunder cav ride sharks vs wolves. You could even have schools of sharks vs packs of wolves. How about a hover boat pulled by sharks? Maybe just a dude riding a pair of sharks like Aquaman stands on a pair of dolphins at times.
And of course we can't forget the lazers on the sharks heads....

Park the new Primaris fixed-gun thing on top of the doom-turtle?

 Lance845 wrote:
What would be nice is if they stopped with the bespoke bs and actually put in robust tools to build "named characters". Then, build their own named characters using those rules. That way we are working with the same tools as the developers and can actually build our own home brew "chapter"/hivefleet/regiment/etc...

Right. Like we need more ways to break stuff.

Custom <whatever> inevitably breaks the game. The less there is the better.

tneva82 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
What would be nice is if they stopped with the bespoke bs and actually put in robust tools to build "named characters". Then, build their own named characters using those rules. That way we are working with the same tools as the developers and can actually build our own home brew "chapter"/hivefleet/regiment/etc...

Right. Like we need more ways to break stuff.

Custom <whatever> inevitably breaks the game. The less there is the better.

No harm as the games already broken.

True, the only way to fix the broken problem is not to try to limit the broken, because this will never work, and it doesn't matter if done intentionaly or if the sales departament forces design to make something 200pts undercosted. The only way to fix the broken problem is for everything to be broken, or at least for every army to have insane broken stuff to play with. If everything is broken nothing is.

And it is a huge difference from trying to streamline and cut stuff for everyone. Not because it never works, but because armies with cut options are boring and un fun to play.

I would love to see pre nerf marines vs something like boys with 3W each or tyranids who can charge 24"+ out of their deployment zone etc

The issue with "everything is broken" is that the game is just reduced to gimmick builds. Which can work (for a time) in a computer game, but in a game with a significant time and money commitment to fielding the army, just alienates.

The debate is what the playerbase want. To some extent *competitive players* don't care, because they'll just take the best stuff.

So I feel its a toss up between "systemists" - who would prefer a limited number of choices that are all nudged to be broadly "viable", if not top-tier amazing - and I guess "narrativists" who would prefer an vast number of options that could never be balanced but will allow a near infinite amount of customisation of "your dudes".

I'm very much in the systemist camp. I'd prefer if GW looked upon what they had wrought, and said "okay, we are going to make 5-8 ways to play each faction, as indicated by a given chapter/dynasty/whatever, and we'll nudge the tactics/warlord traits/relics/statagem etc towards making that "build" a thing".

But all the customisation makes me think that's never going to happen. Which is a shame. And 90% of customisation won't actually be seen in the wild, because people will just mix and match the best stuff. So its a waste of ink.

Well it is better have a gimmik build that works, then a codex with balanced rules in a world where balanced means bad.

And in a world where GW can't even make one valid way for some armies to play, I have my deep doubts that they could sit down and decide to design 5-8 ways to play even just the most popular factions.

Karol wrote:
Well it is better have a gimmik build that works, then a codex with balanced rules in a world where balanced means bad.

And in a world where GW can't even make one valid way for some armies to play, I have my deep doubts that they could sit down and decide to design 5-8 ways to play even just the most popular factions.

gimmic builds are just annoying because it means unless you happen to have the exact right combination of models your army sucks but it's not going away. tell Marine players who didn't run gulliman having a gimmick build was good during the 8.0 days. tell eldar players who didn't run the various eldar gimmick lists their codex was "fine because they can just run the gimick build" Gimmick builds are utter cancer to the game because the only people who run them are try hard compeitive types willing to randomly buy a specific army or someone who happened to get lucky.

thats not what people want. want most people want is an army thats well balanced across the codex and capable of being compeitive with a large varity of, reasonably sane builds.

Take Slaanesh in AoS right now - they've a very powerful build that focuses on using mostly hero/leader models to generate depravity to then summon more leaders that generate more depravity. Which means the best army is one that's basically all Keepers of Secrets.

Anything else - fiends, deamonettes, seekers, chariots - are all decent, but less powerful. So you've a Battletome(codex) that offers a lot of variety, but where only 1 build is supreme over all the others.

Plus with how depravity works you always want your maximum of leaders which means even if you don't build perfectly for it (all keepers) you're still wanting more points in your leaders than the rest of the army.



The result is a battletome that is powerful, when running its depravity focused lists, but offers little variety in what you can take whilst retaining the power. Meanwhile if you do take other lists you know that you're operating "at a loss" of the army full potential.



Now every army will have builds that are better and worse; but when there's one build that outstrips the others its bad. Ossiarchs had the same with their +1 save to every model. The other army themes were ok, but +1 save to every model was just so powerful it was an automatic take.

BrianDavion 793948 10987693 wrote:

gimmic builds are just annoying because it means unless you happen to have the exact right combination of models your army sucks but it's not going away. tell Marine players who didn't run gulliman having a gimmick build was good during the 8.0 days. tell eldar players who didn't run the various eldar gimmick lists their codex was "fine because they can just run the gimick build" Gimmick builds are utter cancer to the game because the only people who run them are try hard compeitive types willing to randomly buy a specific army or someone who happened to get lucky.

thats not what people want. want most people want is an army thats well balanced across the codex and capable of being compeitive with a large varity of, reasonably sane builds.

I don't think eldar are a good example for gathering sympathy, not after 9 editions of top builds. And again let me tell you having one gimmik build, and eldar had more then one in 8th, is way better then having just a bad codex that doesn't work, because the design team decided to do some copy pasting without care about edition core rules or lit viabililty. Would it be nice to have 8 ways to play every single codex? of course. But this is the real world. In the real world you are lucky if you have one good way to play. But yeah historicaly from an eldar players perspective it is probably better for no one to have gimmik builds, because there is always the small chance that something like the castellan list pops up and suddenly they have to buy new models to play flyer lists. And no one likes to buy extra models to play the same faction. And yeah the 8th ed CWE eldar codex was balanced, you practicaly could play anything when carried by strong units, and if someone was double dipping on CWE and Inari rules, then their casual for fun lists were beating all but the most powerful tournament lists in 8th ed. The thing is aside for eldar and marines, no other faction can be sure that their new codex is going to be balanced internaly or externaly, not to mention both at the same time. this way I think that having OP units and rules for every faction is better, it at least gives you a fighting chance and not the guess you draw a short one this edition treatment.

Now every army will have builds that are better and worse; but when there's one build that outstrips the others its bad. Ossiarchs had the same with their +1 save to every model. The other army themes were ok, but +1 save to every model was just so powerful it was an automatic take.

That is a valid assumption only for armies that could have more, then one build. You ain't going to get a lot of sympathy from a KO player or CoS player that you are forced in to a triple KoS build, because comparing to them the slanesh player is playing a totaly different game.

And it is the eldar example yet again. It was not enough that bikes, dark reaper, serpents, spears and flyers were good. At the hight of eldar power, pre Inari nerf , eldar players were claiming their codex wasn't good enough, because guardians , DAs and melee foot eldar were kind of a bad. That is something we here call a rich persons problem.

Karol wrote:

Now every army will have builds that are better and worse; but when there's one build that outstrips the others its bad. Ossiarchs had the same with their +1 save to every model. The other army themes were ok, but +1 save to every model was just so powerful it was an automatic take.

That is a valid assumption only for armies that could have more, then one build. You ain't going to get a lot of sympathy from a KO player or CoS player that you are forced in to a triple KoS build, because comparing to them the slanesh player is playing a totaly different game.

Slaanesh and Ossiarchs are not that big in model range either.
AoS does have a good few smaller armies so often their variations are focusing on one unit over another. That said it should still be part and parcel of their tomes that its an option to build in different ways not just one way. In theory the more you then add to the army the more options you are adding and with a flat level of internal balance its easier to slip things into the army to create new niches and options.

From the little I read about AoS, the top armies are all more often then not doing summoning and be build around 2-3 of something big.

The number of models doesn't matter that much, unless you can really get an army for a lot cheaper then that of your friend, and GW seems to be bound for something like that to not happen too often. Of course I would love GW books to have to have multiple ways of playing, the way the sm codex is. It is an awesome thing.

I question the validity of the argument that for GW, with the people that work there and with the company operating the way it does. It is more probable for GW to make books for everyone with those 5-8 good builds, then 1 skew list per book. I am talking about reality. I already partialy agreed to the statment that the best situation would be ton of OP stuff.

It ain't my foult that some people think that OP has to mean gimmik lists, even if sometimes it does.

Tyel wrote:
The issue with "everything is broken" is that the game is just reduced to gimmick builds. Which can work (for a time) in a computer game, but in a game with a significant time and money commitment to fielding the army, just alienates.

The debate is what the playerbase want. To some extent *competitive players* don't care, because they'll just take the best stuff.

So I feel its a toss up between "systemists" - who would prefer a limited number of choices that are all nudged to be broadly "viable", if not top-tier amazing - and I guess "narrativists" who would prefer an vast number of options that could never be balanced but will allow a near infinite amount of customisation of "your dudes".

I'm very much in the systemist camp. I'd prefer if GW looked upon what they had wrought, and said "okay, we are going to make 5-8 ways to play each faction, as indicated by a given chapter/dynasty/whatever, and we'll nudge the tactics/warlord traits/relics/statagem etc towards making that "build" a thing".

But all the customisation makes me think that's never going to happen. Which is a shame. And 90% of customisation won't actually be seen in the wild, because people will just mix and match the best stuff. So its a waste of ink.

Players will optimize the fun out of a game. Most armies do have a lot of ways you can play them. Most of them are just not good. Some of them are surprisingly sleeper good but still not as good as the most optimum way to play the army. At the end of the day the game is a compitition and people want to win. They will usually go for the most optimum way to play.

Karol wrote:
From the little I read about AoS, the top armies are all more often then not doing summoning and be build around 2-3 of something big.

The number of models doesn't matter that much, unless you can really get an army for a lot cheaper then that of your friend, and GW seems to be bound for something like that to not happen too often. Of course I would love GW books to have to have multiple ways of playing, the way the sm codex is. It is an awesome thing.

I question the validity of the argument that for GW, with the people that work there and with the company operating the way it does. It is more probable for GW to make books for everyone with those 5-8 good builds, then 1 skew list per book. I am talking about reality. I already partialy agreed to the statment that the best situation would be ton of OP stuff.

It ain't my foult that some people think that OP has to mean gimmik lists, even if sometimes it does.

The issue is, typically, if a codex has multiple potential playstyles at top level competitive play, it's because that army does that thing better than everyone else.

Typically there are multiple potential playstyles present in any given codex. the only question is whether they're actually a feasible thing that can work against an opponent running a competitive list. You love to complain about how unfair it was that eldar could have multiple playstyles and many of their units were really good compared to other codexes' stuff....but then you like that space marines currently have multiple playstyles and don't seem to understand why that is, and why you can't just 'give everyone else multiple playstyles.'

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 793948 10987693 wrote:

gimmic builds are just annoying because it means unless you happen to have the exact right combination of models your army sucks but it's not going away. tell Marine players who didn't run gulliman having a gimmick build was good during the 8.0 days. tell eldar players who didn't run the various eldar gimmick lists their codex was "fine because they can just run the gimick build" Gimmick builds are utter cancer to the game because the only people who run them are try hard compeitive types willing to randomly buy a specific army or someone who happened to get lucky.

thats not what people want. want most people want is an army thats well balanced across the codex and capable of being compeitive with a large varity of, reasonably sane builds.

I don't think eldar are a good example for gathering sympathy, not after 9 editions of top builds. And again let me tell you having one gimmik build, and eldar had more then one in 8th, is way better then having just a bad codex that doesn't work, because the design team decided to do some copy pasting without care about edition core rules or lit viabililty. Would it be nice to have 8 ways to play every single codex? of course. But this is the real world. In the real world you are lucky if you have one good way to play. But yeah historicaly from an eldar players perspective it is probably better for no one to have gimmik builds, because there is always the small chance that something like the castellan list pops up and suddenly they have to buy new models to play flyer lists. And no one likes to buy extra models to play the same faction. And yeah the 8th ed CWE eldar codex was balanced, you practicaly could play anything when carried by strong units, and if someone was double dipping on CWE and Inari rules, then their casual for fun lists were beating all but the most powerful tournament lists in 8th ed. The thing is aside for eldar and marines, no other faction can be sure that their new codex is going to be balanced internaly or externaly, not to mention both at the same time. this way I think that having OP units and rules for every faction is better, it at least gives you a fighting chance and not the guess you draw a short one this edition treatment.

Now every army will have builds that are better and worse; but when there's one build that outstrips the others its bad. Ossiarchs had the same with their +1 save to every model. The other army themes were ok, but +1 save to every model was just so powerful it was an automatic take.

That is a valid assumption only for armies that could have more, then one build. You ain't going to get a lot of sympathy from a KO player or CoS player that you are forced in to a triple KoS build, because comparing to them the slanesh player is playing a totaly different game.

And it is the eldar example yet again. It was not enough that bikes, dark reaper, serpents, spears and flyers were good. At the hight of eldar power, pre Inari nerf , eldar players were claiming their codex wasn't good enough, because guardians , DAs and melee foot eldar were kind of a bad. That is something we here call a rich persons problem.

except eldar are a good example, because yeah, people tend to dismiss them as "ohh they're powerful" even though a LOT of the time over the various editions it's been based on gimmick builds. if I was an eldar player I'd not be happy with that. god knows I wasn't happy when armies I played where reliant on gimmick builds ebcause I didn't wanna run them.

Karol wrote:
And it is the eldar example yet again. It was not enough that bikes, dark reaper, serpents, spears and flyers were good. At the hight of eldar power, pre Inari nerf , eldar players were claiming their codex wasn't good enough, because guardians , DAs and melee foot eldar were kind of a bad. That is something we here call a rich persons problem.

I'm gonna need a citation on that. I have a sneaking suspicion that Eldar players acknowledged the power level of their codex in a way that you do not for the armies you play.

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
And it is the eldar example yet again. It was not enough that bikes, dark reaper, serpents, spears and flyers were good. At the hight of eldar power, pre Inari nerf , eldar players were claiming their codex wasn't good enough, because guardians , DAs and melee foot eldar were kind of a bad. That is something we here call a rich persons problem.

I'm gonna need a citation on that. I have a sneaking suspicion that Eldar players acknowledged the power level of their codex in a way that you do not for the armies you play.

He has a personal disdain of Eldar and eldar players because he played a rock bottom tier army vs only alitoic flier spam for 90% of 8th edition. So he brings it up in every thread.

I would disregard most of what he says about eldar (or 40k for that matter)
Also Karol is a minor who also happens to play in a very wierd toxic meta his accounts... So yeah you will get everything viewed though that lense.

 Argive wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
And it is the eldar example yet again. It was not enough that bikes, dark reaper, serpents, spears and flyers were good. At the hight of eldar power, pre Inari nerf , eldar players were claiming their codex wasn't good enough, because guardians , DAs and melee foot eldar were kind of a bad. That is something we here call a rich persons problem.

I'm gonna need a citation on that. I have a sneaking suspicion that Eldar players acknowledged the power level of their codex in a way that you do not for the armies you play.

I would disregard what he says about eldar.
He has a personal disdain of Eldar and eldar players because he played a rock bottom tier army vs only alitoic flier spam for 90% of 8th edition.

Also Karol is a minor so everything is viewed through a very specific lense.

Honestly I doubt even what you said is true, though I bet he's said that.

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
And it is the eldar example yet again. It was not enough that bikes, dark reaper, serpents, spears and flyers were good. At the hight of eldar power, pre Inari nerf , eldar players were claiming their codex wasn't good enough, because guardians , DAs and melee foot eldar were kind of a bad. That is something we here call a rich persons problem.

I'm gonna need a citation on that. I have a sneaking suspicion that Eldar players acknowledged the power level of their codex in a way that you do not for the armies you play.

You can basically ignore whatever Karol says about eldar honestly.
What he doesnt seem to understand is that for most players, having spammy, super strong list choice isnt what we look for.

Ynnari was boring, Flyer spam was boring.

Yet, apparently if i dare complain that warp spiders are weak im a filthy eldar player that wants an OP codex. Its not about the codex not being strong enough as a whole, its about the identity of the codex not fitting with whats good.

Then he'll turn around and bitch that his gakky GK list that doesn't work couldnt beat top lists and that he can't buy more models

 Argive wrote:


My money is on DE if anything at all in terms of 40k.
I think its 40k turn to get major previews now though isint it ?

I hope you got good odds, great shout.

So, I'm glad DE are coming up (though leery about a thin model update). But this quote from the preview honestly makes me tired.

The first xenos codex of 2021 makes the Drukhari faster and deadlier than ever before. You’ll see:

More attacks
Higher damage
Lethal combat output across the board

More attacks, more dice, more more more more.

And while I get the damage increase on the incubi to combat the 2Ws, I hate to think what's going to happen to the units that don't end up getting a damage bump.

Dialing everything up to 11- just not sure this is the best approach.

Voss wrote:
So, I'm glad DE are coming up (though leery about a thin model update). But this quote from the preview honestly makes me tired.

The first xenos codex of 2021 makes the Drukhari faster and deadlier than ever before. You’ll see:

More attacks
Higher damage
Lethal combat output across the board

More attacks, more dice, more more more more.

And while I get the damage increase on the incubi to combat the 2Ws, I hate to think what's going to happen to the units that don't end up getting a damage bump.

Dialing everything up to 11- just not sure this is the best approach.

Its a bad approach but thanks to the wonders of Shock Assault there are only 2 options for GW.
Buff everyone else up to 11, because even a basic primaris has 3 attacks, something normally reserved for dedicated combat units of other factions,
or Nerf marines back down and admit giving an entire faction a blanket +1 attack and -1 AP was a colossal mistake.

(well ok, there is a 3e option, ignore the issue and watch the game slowly, or not so slowly die, much like 7th edition did).

 Overread wrote:
Take Slaanesh in AoS right now - they've a very powerful build that focuses on using mostly hero/leader models to generate depravity to then summon more leaders that generate more depravity. Which means the best army is one that's basically all Keepers of Secrets.

Anything else - fiends, deamonettes, seekers, chariots - are all decent, but less powerful. So you've a Battletome(codex) that offers a lot of variety, but where only 1 build is supreme over all the others.

Plus with how depravity works you always want your maximum of leaders which means even if you don't build perfectly for it (all keepers) you're still wanting more points in your leaders than the rest of the army.

The result is a battletome that is powerful, when running its depravity focused lists, but offers little variety in what you can take whilst retaining the power. Meanwhile if you do take other lists you know that you're operating "at a loss" of the army full potential.

Now every army will have builds that are better and worse; but when there's one build that outstrips the others its bad. Ossiarchs had the same with their +1 save to every model. The other army themes were ok, but +1 save to every model was just so powerful it was an automatic take.

I see your point, but the problem is that I completely adore how Slaanesh plays in AoS and love herohammer tbh. I don't want that playstyle to be changed.

Voss wrote:
So, I'm glad DE are coming up (though leery about a thin model update). But this quote from the preview honestly makes me tired.

The first xenos codex of 2021 makes the Drukhari faster and deadlier than ever before. You’ll see:

More attacks
Higher damage
Lethal combat output across the board

More attacks, more dice, more more more more.

And while I get the damage increase on the incubi to combat the 2Ws, I hate to think what's going to happen to the units that don't end up getting a damage bump.

Dialing everything up to 11- just not sure this is the best approach.

No it isn't. If D2 is just to cancel out the new 2W then we are left back where we started, except for all those weapons that are stuck at D1. It's just more of the Codex arms race.

BrianDavion 793948 10988389 wrote:


except eldar are a good example, because yeah, people tend to dismiss them as "ohh they're powerful" even though a LOT of the time over the various editions it's been based on gimmick builds. if I was an eldar player I'd not be happy with that. god knows I wasn't happy when armies I played where reliant on gimmick builds ebcause I didn't wanna run them.

You know everyone would be happy if they had a so powerful set of rules, that anywhere outside of the top tournament circles it could carry practicaly any combination of units. So while not every eldar player had to play some army of doom with just WK, scatter bikes and serpents, they were well could have half of their army made out of those units, and half made out of random stuff, and the army resulting from a such a combination would still be doing very well.

No one at my old store played CWE or Inari with 60 reapers or 6 flyers. But all of them did use some of those units in smaller, same way marine started using intercessors when suddenly they were made good. And again, I think having a gimmik is way better then not having one. Because if you don't have one and GW doesn't write a codex for you faction which is jam packed with powerful rules, the further you get in to edition the worse the book gets. I am talking from only 8th expiriance here, but GK in 8th had the design team streamline and balance the hack out of their books. It was devoided of major gimmiks, and those that it had were removed as the edition went on. Worse this situation ment that you were even more limited in what you could take. Without good or gimmik units or combos of units that could carry you, you could never afford to play with weaker units, because your army was already weak. And if you tried that it was not very fun, I can tell you that as someone who played 8th with a GK termintor army. And it may not come as a suprise that GK stoped being unfun as soon as their got their PA book , full of gimmiks, specialy for paladins, making termintor models actualy no punishingly bad to take.

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 793948 10988389 wrote:


except eldar are a good example, because yeah, people tend to dismiss them as "ohh they're powerful" even though a LOT of the time over the various editions it's been based on gimmick builds. if I was an eldar player I'd not be happy with that. god knows I wasn't happy when armies I played where reliant on gimmick builds ebcause I didn't wanna run them.

You know everyone would be happy if they had a so powerful set of rules, that anywhere outside of the top tournament circles it could carry practicaly any combination of units. So while not every eldar player had to play some army of doom with just WK, scatter bikes and serpents, they were well could have half of their army made out of those units, and half made out of random stuff, and the army resulting from a such a combination would still be doing very well.

No one at my old store played CWE or Inari with 60 reapers or 6 flyers. But all of them did use some of those units in smaller, same way marine started using intercessors when suddenly they were made good. And again, I think having a gimmik is way better then not having one. Because if you don't have one and GW doesn't write a codex for you faction which is jam packed with powerful rules, the further you get in to edition the worse the book gets. I am talking from only 8th expiriance here, but GK in 8th had the design team streamline and balance the hack out of their books. It was devoided of major gimmiks, and those that it had were removed as the edition went on. Worse this situation ment that you were even more limited in what you could take. Without good or gimmik units or combos of units that could carry you, you could never afford to play with weaker units, because your army was already weak. And if you tried that it was not very fun, I can tell you that as someone who played 8th with a GK termintor army. And it may not come as a suprise that GK stoped being unfun as soon as their got their PA book , full of gimmiks, specialy for paladins, making termintor models actualy no punishingly bad to take.

Karol ffs, stop with your eldar hate boner.
When people complain that eldar are weak, they complain about aspect warriors being bad mostly. When is the last time you've seen swooping hawks/warp spiders/banshees/scorpions? Pretty much never.

Iracundus wrote:

No it isn't. If D2 is just to cancel out the new 2W then we are left back where we started, except for all those weapons that are stuck at D1. It's just more of the Codex arms race.

New? Primaris have had at minimum two wounds for years friend.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

No it isn't. If D2 is just to cancel out the new 2W then we are left back where we started, except for all those weapons that are stuck at D1. It's just more of the Codex arms race.

New? Primaris have had at minimum two wounds for years friend.

And were the primary type of Marine ran. Quite frankly the complaining is a bit silly and, if anything, helps give Incubi a niche over Banshees and Scorpions.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

No it isn't. If D2 is just to cancel out the new 2W then we are left back where we started, except for all those weapons that are stuck at D1. It's just more of the Codex arms race.

New? Primaris have had at minimum two wounds for years friend.

And were the primary type of Marine ran. Quite frankly the complaining is a bit silly and, if anything, helps give Incubi a niche over Banshees and Scorpions.

But those units are not even from the same book? It's like saying Nobz need to be given a niche over aggressors. Not that I'm complaining mind, but this seems like an odd take.

I mean bringing Incubi up to D2 on their melee weapons is cool, but it basically means that there's no point in playing or buying anything if you're in a faction that doesn't have a 9e codex yet.

Drip-feed codices are a mistake.

 Castozor wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

No it isn't. If D2 is just to cancel out the new 2W then we are left back where we started, except for all those weapons that are stuck at D1. It's just more of the Codex arms race.

New? Primaris have had at minimum two wounds for years friend.

And were the primary type of Marine ran. Quite frankly the complaining is a bit silly and, if anything, helps give Incubi a niche over Banshees and Scorpions.

But those units are not even from the same book? It's like saying Nobz need to be given a niche over aggressors. Not that I'm complaining mind, but this seems like an odd take.

Maybe it's supposed to be an argument for playing DE vs CWE?

Looks more like an argument to play other things until something decent comes your way

Voss wrote:
So, I'm glad DE are coming up (though leery about a thin model update). But this quote from the preview honestly makes me tired.

The first xenos codex of 2021 makes the Drukhari faster and deadlier than ever before. You’ll see:

More attacks
Higher damage
Lethal combat output across the board

More attacks, more dice, more more more more.

And while I get the damage increase on the incubi to combat the 2Ws, I hate to think what's going to happen to the units that don't end up getting a damage bump.

Dialing everything up to 11- just not sure this is the best approach.

While I agree that making everything more lethal is not the solution to balance the game, if a faction has to become more lethal is Dark Eldar.

That's our thing, fast and deadly. I, for one, don't enjoy the abominations we have to play now for being semi-competitive... full Coven with Dark Technomancers for cheesy Reaper shots.

 Denegaar wrote:


While I agree that making everything more lethal is not the solution to balance the game, if a faction has to become more lethal is Dark Eldar.

That's our thing, fast and deadly. I, for one, don't enjoy the abominations we have to play now for being semi-competitive... full Coven with Dark Technomancers for cheesy Reaper shots.

I couldn't agree more with every word.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Take Slaanesh in AoS right now - they've a very powerful build that focuses on using mostly hero/leader models to generate depravity to then summon more leaders that generate more depravity. Which means the best army is one that's basically all Keepers of Secrets.

Anything else - fiends, deamonettes, seekers, chariots - are all decent, but less powerful. So you've a Battletome(codex) that offers a lot of variety, but where only 1 build is supreme over all the others.

Plus with how depravity works you always want your maximum of leaders which means even if you don't build perfectly for it (all keepers) you're still wanting more points in your leaders than the rest of the army.

The result is a battletome that is powerful, when running its depravity focused lists, but offers little variety in what you can take whilst retaining the power. Meanwhile if you do take other lists you know that you're operating "at a loss" of the army full potential.

Now every army will have builds that are better and worse; but when there's one build that outstrips the others its bad. Ossiarchs had the same with their +1 save to every model. The other army themes were ok, but +1 save to every model was just so powerful it was an automatic take.

I see your point, but the problem is that I completely adore how Slaanesh plays in AoS and love herohammer tbh. I don't want that playstyle to be changed.

Thing is I'm totally fine with an army of mostly keepers - they are fantastic models.
I just want the Battletome to be able to do that without feeling overpowered and broken AND to have the ability to do other things of equal (or at least balanced) weight in power. I want to be able to use deamonettes for more than "battleline tax" I want to be able to use a fleet of chariots and seekers; or to throw down fiends. Right now doing any of those results in a much weaker army.

The correct course is to adjust things so that both sides get what they want rather than only one. The new mortal models, right now, have no purpose because they won't generate depravity. So I'm expecting GW will have to rework something to make them work otherwise all those shiny mortals will be useless.

 Denegaar wrote:

Voss wrote:
So, I'm glad DE are coming up (though leery about a thin model update). But this quote from the preview honestly makes me tired.

The first xenos codex of 2021 makes the Drukhari faster and deadlier than ever before. You’ll see:

More attacks
Higher damage
Lethal combat output across the board

More attacks, more dice, more more more more.

And while I get the damage increase on the incubi to combat the 2Ws, I hate to think what's going to happen to the units that don't end up getting a damage bump.

Dialing everything up to 11- just not sure this is the best approach.

While I agree that making everything more lethal is not the solution to balance the game, if a faction has to become more lethal is Dark Eldar.

That's our thing, fast and deadly. I, for one, don't enjoy the abominations we have to play now for being semi-competitive... full Coven with Dark Technomancers for cheesy Reaper shots.

I agree.

However, I can't help but notice an absence of references to, say, 'new models' or 'more options'. Both things Dark Eldar have been in dire need of for almost a decade now.

 vipoid wrote:

 Denegaar wrote:

Voss wrote:
So, I'm glad DE are coming up (though leery about a thin model update). But this quote from the preview honestly makes me tired.

The first xenos codex of 2021 makes the Drukhari faster and deadlier than ever before. You’ll see:

More attacks
Higher damage
Lethal combat output across the board

More attacks, more dice, more more more more.

And while I get the damage increase on the incubi to combat the 2Ws, I hate to think what's going to happen to the units that don't end up getting a damage bump.

Dialing everything up to 11- just not sure this is the best approach.

While I agree that making everything more lethal is not the solution to balance the game, if a faction has to become more lethal is Dark Eldar.

That's our thing, fast and deadly. I, for one, don't enjoy the abominations we have to play now for being semi-competitive... full Coven with Dark Technomancers for cheesy Reaper shots.

I agree.

However, I can't help but notice an absence of references to, say, 'new models' or 'more options'. Both things Dark Eldar have been in dire need of for almost a decade now.

You're not alone in that observation.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dai wrote:
It's amazing how long it's taking them to make the obvious move of codexing and deamon primarching up Emps Kids and World Eaters. I know those models take some designing but I Imagine they also sell like hot cakes to collectors and gamers alike.

Listen, they have to do Marines, then green marines, then black-and-silver (not to be confused with black-and-white) marines, then dog marines, then red marines.

They have a lot to get through, be patient.

I’m actually surprised how many between codex weeks have been empty. They listed so many units in the codex preview, and I don’t think we’ve seen anything from the codex preview included in any of the codex release weeks. And it’s starting to add up. There’s a lot of Gladiators, Speeders, BGV’s, Erads, and heavy/assault Intercessors to paint for as long as they’re holding off the full kits.

Well, Breton, two of your six go up for pre-order next week, so that's something.

 Dysartes wrote:
Well, Breton, two of your six go up for pre-order next week, so that's something.

Yeah, and I’m sure the Gladiators and Speeders will be one box, three data sheets/units options included... I.e. one box will make any of the three so they’re technically one “release” I’m just shaking my head that they
A) made a giant hype splash tying them in with the codex release while waiting many many weeks after to actually release
B) had any empty preorder weeks. Even one unit from that list on an empty week means fewer people are deciding between this or that new release both on a per-payday and per-paint table basis.

It’s inevitable on a week with more than one new release some players will look at it wondering which unit to get first/instead because of budgetary or backed up paint table or both concerns. Not minimizing those events as much as possible was a flubb on their part.

we know the gladiator is so yeah safe assumption the speeder will be too

It does seem odd to leave four units to come out alongside the DA book, though I can see the thematic tie for the Speeders and, unfortunately, BGV.

Eradicators and HI? Not so much.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

No it isn't. If D2 is just to cancel out the new 2W then we are left back where we started, except for all those weapons that are stuck at D1. It's just more of the Codex arms race.

New? Primaris have had at minimum two wounds for years friend.

And were the primary type of Marine ran. Quite frankly the complaining is a bit silly and, if anything, helps give Incubi a niche over Banshees and Scorpions.

If by "A niche' you mean "hilariously, laughably superior against every target to a ridiculous degree." Remember that a scorpion is WS3+ A2 S4 AP-, and an incubus is now WS2+ A3 S5 AP-3 D2. They're like comparing a vanvet with a relic blade to a naked tactical marine with just a bolt pistol.

I'm not sure it's possible to read much into – or to try and predict – what's coming out when at the moment, given that we know GW is operating at a reduced manufacturing capacity at the moment. I should imagine that there is a lot of juggling around of stuff going on in order to balance keeping a reasonably steady stream of new stuff coming out, keeping pre-existing kits in stock, and mitigating against uncertainty going forward.

Iracundus wrote:
If D2 is just to cancel out the new 2W then we are left back where we started

No. It's worse. D2 cancelling W2 being a new norm means the W10 vehicle is now effectively W5. W12 monstrous creature is W6, because chip damage doubled in effectiveness. Big models that were too fragile before are now made out of wet paper. It also means people who bought into expensive, durable armies like primaris, custodes, nobz, wraiths, warriors, etc, etc, saw their collection peed on and massively reduced in value. I was saying D2 proliferation nonsense that started after 8th edition index was a huge mistake, and even dumber, uncalled for SM buff to W2 (done either to appease tiny, whiny clown minority or because writer is incompetent, I don't know what is worse) only compounded it. GW can now either admit mistake, nerf SM back to W1 and make all D2 weapons back D1 except for S8+ ones, or inflate wounds on everything else. Hello W3 primaris, W4 custodes and warriors, etc, etc. I can't wait till I need to put 3d20 on Rhino to keep track of its wounds

It could be a mistake inferring too much about where 9th is going damage-wise from the Drukhari codex. As has been pointed out, the Drukhari are a 'glass cannon faction', and are therefore (hopefully) outliers.

Outside of Dissie spam(D2 already) and Dark Technomancer the Drukhari were hitting like wet paper and fell apart like one(unless you went full coven). Much of what made Drukhari do any damage had been stripped away since its 5th edition codex(no more trueborns for example) and what remains are crutches that have to be spammed. Especially thanks to how the patrol detachment rule works for the army.

I am actually surprised people are indignant at the original glass cannon army actually getting lethal weapons. If you are a Space Marine player and having issue putting down T3 elves then most likely the problem is in your army build and not in Drukhari getting more damage output.

I am also willing to bet that Drukhari will lose the current Prophets of Flesh trait along with Dark Technomancers - the two things that are keeping the army alive like worn duct tape.

 harlokin wrote:
It could be a mistake inferring too much about where 9th is going damage-wise from the Drukhari codex. As has been pointed out, the Drukhari are a 'glass cannon faction', and are therefore (hopefully) outliers.

We saw it with marines, as a result DE had to be brought up aswell. I think you can infer that if they keep going (its not unheard of for GW to change direction part way through an edition) then everything is going to get even more lethal.

That is why a bunch of people have been calling for marine nerfs, instead of buffing everyone else.
Because this is what happens when you go that route.

 harlokin wrote:
It could be a mistake inferring too much about where 9th is going damage-wise from the Drukhari codex. As has been pointed out, the Drukhari are a 'glass cannon faction', and are therefore (hopefully) outliers.

Exactly.

Feels like a lot of people forget the "glass" in the glasscannon. Primaris can rip through a Raider and Venom with bolters, and not to mention Heavy Bolters that are now even stronger against these flimsy vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

That is why a bunch of people have been calling for marine nerfs, instead of buffing everyone else.
Because this is what happens when you go that route.

I don't necessarily think the increased damage is necessarily the problem - as it gives us a certain depth in one area that has remained stagnant - but the asymmetrical wound pool boosting.

I actually think raiders and venoms are more durable (per point, since that needs to be said) in a marine meta than things like Rhinos or Impulsors.

They don't pay for a 3+ armor save they aren't using, they have an invuln against Melta, they're high enough toughness that Bolters still wound on 5s (same as Rhinos and Impulsors) but they don't pay for T7, and they have just as many wounds as Rhinos and Impulsors.

Gotta love people being indignant at the idea of specialized Elite-killing Elite units having D2 weaponry.

It's not like Kabalites are getting it.

I'm sorry you think that D2 weapons on Elite units should be restricted to BGV and Terminators but uhhhh from a gameplay and lore perspective that's a complete load of gak. Quite frankly units like Incubi and Praetorians should obliterate your standard Marine. They're easily capable of doing it in the lore and they should be capable of it on the tabletop. Making units like them only D1 just makes them completely irrelevant and ensures they'll never be used in any context.

Yeah, marines being W2 devalues vehicles, heavy infantry, bikes, etc.... people were definitely saying that when marines were being moved to W2, but people were so busy jerking over how fluffy it was that 10 tactical marines were tougher than the rhino they were riding in on that it didn't matter.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually think raiders and venoms are more durable (per point, since that needs to be said) in a marine meta than things like Rhinos or Impulsors.

They don't pay for a 3+ armor save they aren't using, they have an invuln against Melta, they're high enough toughness that Bolters still wound on 5s (same as Rhinos and Impulsors) but they don't pay for T7, and they have just as many wounds as Rhinos and Impulsors.

Doesn't change the fact that those Primaris are going to rip through those Raiders and Venoms with ease(rate of fire and AP) while kabalites will have a hard time killing that rhino/Impulsor with their poison weapons. Where, btw, the rhinos are going to be using that 3+ save to great effect as poison weapons aren't exactly armor piercing much these days.

Also a single melta shot is more likely going to kill a venom that fails its save, whereas a dark lance is maybe going to do 6 damage(not enough to kill a rhino or Impulsor) or 1 damage. Plus the Dark Lance is a heavy weapon which means -1 to hit for that Warrior if they move.

That's before we take into account that the Space Marines have T4-5 on their infantry with 3+ save being the average whereas Dark Eldar are T3 with 5+ save on average and a 6+++ that will save the occasional wound. There is a reason why Prophets of Flesh is such a crutch right now as it is one of the few things providing the faction with any durability.

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, marines being W2 devalues vehicles, heavy infantry, bikes, etc.... people were definitely saying that when marines were being moved to W2, but people were so busy jerking over how fluffy it was that 10 tactical marines were tougher than the rhino they were riding in on that it didn't matter.

Honestly, all vehicles and monsters should double in wounds at this point.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, marines being W2 devalues vehicles, heavy infantry, bikes, etc.... people were definitely saying that when marines were being moved to W2, but people were so busy jerking over how fluffy it was that 10 tactical marines were tougher than the rhino they were riding in on that it didn't matter.

Honestly, all vehicles and monsters should double in wounds at this point.

But then Marines might not feel appropriately tough. How about we make them four wounds each?

 vipoid wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, marines being W2 devalues vehicles, heavy infantry, bikes, etc.... people were definitely saying that when marines were being moved to W2, but people were so busy jerking over how fluffy it was that 10 tactical marines were tougher than the rhino they were riding in on that it didn't matter.

Honestly, all vehicles and monsters should double in wounds at this point.

But then Marines might not feel appropriately tough. How about we make them four wounds each?

I get youre joking but an actual solution to this is to make anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons only effective at killing their intended target.

 vipoid wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, marines being W2 devalues vehicles, heavy infantry, bikes, etc.... people were definitely saying that when marines were being moved to W2, but people were so busy jerking over how fluffy it was that 10 tactical marines were tougher than the rhino they were riding in on that it didn't matter.

Honestly, all vehicles and monsters should double in wounds at this point.

But then Marines might not feel appropriately tough. How about we make them four wounds each?

No, the only appropriate thing to do is to take the marine statline which has been static since whatever 3rd edition, update that, and then STOP. IMMEDIATELY. Push back against anyone else who thinks their statline should be updated! No! Eldar Guardians SHOULD be statistically the same as guard veterans! That's fine! There's no problem! You should need 19 kabalite warriors to kill one space marine!

the_scotsman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, marines being W2 devalues vehicles, heavy infantry, bikes, etc.... people were definitely saying that when marines were being moved to W2, but people were so busy jerking over how fluffy it was that 10 tactical marines were tougher than the rhino they were riding in on that it didn't matter.

Honestly, all vehicles and monsters should double in wounds at this point.

But then Marines might not feel appropriately tough. How about we make them four wounds each?

No, the only appropriate thing to do is to take the marine statline which has been static since whatever 3rd edition, update that, and then STOP. IMMEDIATELY. Push back against anyone else who thinks their statline should be updated! No! Eldar Guardians SHOULD be statistically the same as guard veterans! That's fine! There's no problem! You should need 19 kabalite warriors to kill one space marine!

If marines were costed appropriately i would be fine with it. Sadly, theyre all undercosted for their resilience and instead of costing them higher, GW upped the damage all around, which makes the already squishy factions even more squishy.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually think raiders and venoms are more durable (per point, since that needs to be said) in a marine meta than things like Rhinos or Impulsors.

They don't pay for a 3+ armor save they aren't using, they have an invuln against Melta, they're high enough toughness that Bolters still wound on 5s (same as Rhinos and Impulsors) but they don't pay for T7, and they have just as many wounds as Rhinos and Impulsors.

Doesn't change the fact that those Primaris are going to rip through those Raiders and Venoms with ease(rate of fire and AP) while kabalites will have a hard time killing that rhino/Impulsor with their poison weapons. Where, btw, the rhinos are going to be using that 3+ save to great effect as poison weapons aren't exactly armor piercing much these days.

Also a single melta shot is more likely going to kill a venom that fails its save, whereas a dark lance is maybe going to do 6 damage(not enough to kill a rhino or Impulsor) or 1 damage. Plus the Dark Lance is a heavy weapon which means -1 to hit for that Warrior if they move.

That's before we take into account that the Space Marines have T4-5 on their infantry with 3+ save being the average whereas Dark Eldar are T3 with 5+ save on average and a 6+++ that will save the occasional wound. There is a reason why Prophets of Flesh is such a crutch right now as it is one of the few things providing the faction with any durability.

The post I was replying to (of yours) specifically said that Primaris with bolters will be ripping up those flimsy tanks.

I am, of course, pointing out that those "flimsy tanks" are exactly as flimsy to Primaris bolters as Rhinos and Impulsors are, and actually less flimsy point-for-point. The idea that Dark Eldar are glass cannons and need to die as soon as the enemy looks at them is not only silly on the face of it (after all, speed can be a form of durability depending on how the units are used on the table) but also isn't even true.

The Drukhari previews illustrate, undeniably, escalating lethality to match the escalating durability of Marines. I don't think that's refutable by a cogent argument, and escalating lethality is the last thing 40k needs.

If people want Marines to feel durable, they have to make MEQ units not the most common foe on balance. The issue with Marine durability is everyone tailors against them by default, because they're the default foe. Marines are victims of their own success.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, marines being W2 devalues vehicles, heavy infantry, bikes, etc.... people were definitely saying that when marines were being moved to W2, but people were so busy jerking over how fluffy it was that 10 tactical marines were tougher than the rhino they were riding in on that it didn't matter.

Honestly, all vehicles and monsters should double in wounds at this point.

Yes, Myphitic Blight-haulers need to go to 16 wounds a piece, you are 100% right !!! We will have so much fun

 addnid wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, marines being W2 devalues vehicles, heavy infantry, bikes, etc.... people were definitely saying that when marines were being moved to W2, but people were so busy jerking over how fluffy it was that 10 tactical marines were tougher than the rhino they were riding in on that it didn't matter.

Honestly, all vehicles and monsters should double in wounds at this point.

Yes, Myphitic Blight-haulers need to go to 16 wounds a piece, you are 100% right !!! We will have so much fun

Ahh, yes. Lets try and make my argument invalid by taking one of the most resilient vehicles in the game as an example.
Lets not use things like devilfish, any rhino chassis, raiders, leman russ, carnifex or trukks.

You know fully well that it would be on a case by case basis but that wounds overall should go up.
A tactical squad having more wounds than the rhino carrying them makes total sense.

Don't some vehicles rely on having under 10 wounds, like the dreads or character speeders. If they suddenly jumped to 18 wounds, they would get worse.

the doubling of wounds would be good only for very high T vehicles or stuff that has invs or aura stacing like demon vehicles.

So we already know that the Death Guard are going to lose in the upcoming Charadon campaign book



What a shock

 Marshal Loss wrote:
So we already know that the Death Guard are going to lose in the upcoming Charadon campaign book



What a shock

I've seen villains in Saturday-morning cartoons who get more victories than the evil 40k factions.

I think Incubi were always going to get the 2 damage treatment. They were effectively WS 2+ by turn 3 anyway so... not totally sure this is as big a buff as some might think. What is perhaps more interesting is that they are staying at 1 wound. Notionally makes them sort of fragile but potentially much more lethal compared with Skorpekh Destroyers/Bladeguard Vets.

Would expect Banshees to get 2D too when their codex comes round. Their "thing" has always been killing Marines (badly).

Is everyone getting 2D an issue? Yes - but if all MEQ are 2 wounds, you kind of have to. GW have made AP- D1 almost useless against MEQ which makes up a huge percentage of the played armies. Which you might say would be good for reducing lethality, but it just means everyone glasshammers up into 2D weapons. Unsurprisingly there are knock ons to vehicles - but this I imagine will be trying to make Dark Lances not lolworthy compared to MMs, rather than Incubi jumping in and shredding Rhinos.

Basically I think this edition is going to be screwed, at least for a year, while these "upgrades" are rolled out piecemeal.

I think it would have been much better to have done them all at the same time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually think raiders and venoms are more durable (per point, since that needs to be said) in a marine meta than things like Rhinos or Impulsors.

They don't pay for a 3+ armor save they aren't using, they have an invuln against Melta, they're high enough toughness that Bolters still wound on 5s (same as Rhinos and Impulsors) but they don't pay for T7, and they have just as many wounds as Rhinos and Impulsors.

Doesn't change the fact that those Primaris are going to rip through those Raiders and Venoms with ease(rate of fire and AP) while kabalites will have a hard time killing that rhino/Impulsor with their poison weapons. Where, btw, the rhinos are going to be using that 3+ save to great effect as poison weapons aren't exactly armor piercing much these days.

Also a single melta shot is more likely going to kill a venom that fails its save, whereas a dark lance is maybe going to do 6 damage(not enough to kill a rhino or Impulsor) or 1 damage. Plus the Dark Lance is a heavy weapon which means -1 to hit for that Warrior if they move.

That's before we take into account that the Space Marines have T4-5 on their infantry with 3+ save being the average whereas Dark Eldar are T3 with 5+ save on average and a 6+++ that will save the occasional wound. There is a reason why Prophets of Flesh is such a crutch right now as it is one of the few things providing the faction with any durability.

The post I was replying to (of yours) specifically said that Primaris with bolters will be ripping up those flimsy tanks.

I am, of course, pointing out that those "flimsy tanks" are exactly as flimsy to Primaris bolters as Rhinos and Impulsors are, and actually less flimsy point-for-point. The idea that Dark Eldar are glass cannons and need to die as soon as the enemy looks at them is not only silly on the face of it (after all, speed can be a form of durability depending on how the units are used on the table) but also isn't even true.

The Drukhari previews illustrate, undeniably, escalating lethality to match the escalating durability of Marines. I don't think that's refutable by a cogent argument, and escalating lethality is the last thing 40k needs.

If people want Marines to feel durable, they have to make MEQ units not the most common foe on balance. The issue with Marine durability is everyone tailors against them by default, because they're the default foe. Marines are victims of their own success.

I mean, this would be an argument if it wasn't just wrong.

34 bolt rifles (ignoring chapter tactics, reroll auras, doctrines, etc, assuming 2 shots at base marine BS) to kill a Raider @85pts: 2.51pts/rifle.
27 bolt rifles to kill a Venom @70pts, 2.59pts/rifle
50 bolt rifles to kill an Impulsor @110pts, 2.2pts/rifle
45 bolt rifles to kill a Rhino@80pts, 1.78pts/rifle

Boy, I hope nobody does the comparison on Heavy Bolters or Autocannons vs those vehicles and finds out that marine vehicles are twice as durable!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Don't some vehicles rely on having under 10 wounds, like the dreads or character speeders. If they suddenly jumped to 18 wounds, they would get worse.

the doubling of wounds would be good only for very high T vehicles or stuff that has invs or aura stacing like demon vehicles.

There is absolutely no universe where something having 18w at the same price would be worse than something having 9W. MAYBE if it has character protection, MAYBE? But I don't think so.

 Marshal Loss wrote:
So we already know that the Death Guard are going to lose in the upcoming Charadon campaign book



What a shock

That's from the 'current' AdMech book. Zero mention of Typhus and Drukhari.

Heck, Typhus' First Plague Company isn't even listed in that order of battle! The two Plague Companies mentioned(7th and 3rd) are "Mortarion's <insert here>". 7th are the "Mortarion's Sons" and consist of his 'chosen' and the 3rd are "Mortarion's Anvil".

the_scotsman wrote:
There is absolutely no universe where something having 18w at the same price would be worse than something having 9W. MAYBE if it has character protection, MAYBE? But I don't think so.

Isn't this famously one of the bugbears that doesn't actually apply at a much closer gap?

I.E. "Wraithlords are bad because they have 10 wounds and degrade unlike regular Dreads with 8."
But if you are down to just 1-2 wounds you'd just be flat dead so....?

I guess it depends on how much you think Wraithlords are paying for that tick over. (Admittedly GW have been trying to make Dreads a thing for ages, while the WL has just sort of been abandoned - but ignoring that for now.)

Karol wrote:
Don't some vehicles rely on having under 10 wounds, like the dreads or character speeders. If they suddenly jumped to 18 wounds, they would get worse.

the doubling of wounds would be good only for very high T vehicles or stuff that has invs or aura stacing like demon vehicles.

The concept of vehicles only degrading when above a certain wounds level is stupid IMO. All vehicles and monsters should become worse and worse the more damaged they are.
A rhino with 20 wounds is a lot harder to kill than a rhino with 10 wounds but yes, stuff with invulns would be harder to take down and would benefit more from getting extra wounds.
I shouldve been clearer in what i meant : vehicles and monsters should have their wounds raised on a case by case level.

I just think that if you want to have the new lascannon and melta profiles all over the game, you need to help the underplayed vehiles somehow. Give the land raider 20-25 wounds and now its good.

The problem is, unless it is a new codex for a niche faction, GW tends to not do option by option changes. When they went and did the +1W for marines, the only loyalist marines faction that did not get it were GK.

If they made the double wound thing for all factions, it would more or less had to be done for everyone. Or we would be in a situation where some stuff costs the same it did before the change, but has half the wounds, while other stuff has double the wounds, but the cost changing is going to happen to its stuff in 8-12 months when a new codex comes, out.
Plus somehting as big as this, seems to be only possible at an edition or design paradigma shift. Now I don't know how far in the future GW is with their rules, but I assume the codex for next year are all or at least most already writen. So even if GW decided on it today, the first book with such a change would be seen in 1+ year. If we were lucky.

Tyel wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
There is absolutely no universe where something having 18w at the same price would be worse than something having 9W. MAYBE if it has character protection, MAYBE? But I don't think so.

Isn't this famously one of the bugbears that doesn't actually apply at a much closer gap?

I.E. "Wraithlords are bad because they have 10 wounds and degrade unlike regular Dreads with 8."
But if you are down to just 1-2 wounds you'd just be flat dead so....?

I guess it depends on how much you think Wraithlords are paying for that tick over. (Admittedly GW have been trying to make Dreads a thing for ages, while the WL has just sort of been abandoned - but ignoring that for now.)

I mean, it's kind of irrelevant at this point, because we have seen that the wraithseer is going down to W8 and getting a hilariously gakky special rule that is most likely supposed to "compete" with the marine dreads getting -1D.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually think raiders and venoms are more durable (per point, since that needs to be said) in a marine meta than things like Rhinos or Impulsors.

They don't pay for a 3+ armor save they aren't using, they have an invuln against Melta, they're high enough toughness that Bolters still wound on 5s (same as Rhinos and Impulsors) but they don't pay for T7, and they have just as many wounds as Rhinos and Impulsors.

Doesn't change the fact that those Primaris are going to rip through those Raiders and Venoms with ease(rate of fire and AP) while kabalites will have a hard time killing that rhino/Impulsor with their poison weapons. Where, btw, the rhinos are going to be using that 3+ save to great effect as poison weapons aren't exactly armor piercing much these days.

Also a single melta shot is more likely going to kill a venom that fails its save, whereas a dark lance is maybe going to do 6 damage(not enough to kill a rhino or Impulsor) or 1 damage. Plus the Dark Lance is a heavy weapon which means -1 to hit for that Warrior if they move.

That's before we take into account that the Space Marines have T4-5 on their infantry with 3+ save being the average whereas Dark Eldar are T3 with 5+ save on average and a 6+++ that will save the occasional wound. There is a reason why Prophets of Flesh is such a crutch right now as it is one of the few things providing the faction with any durability.

The post I was replying to (of yours) specifically said that Primaris with bolters will be ripping up those flimsy tanks.

I am, of course, pointing out that those "flimsy tanks" are exactly as flimsy to Primaris bolters as Rhinos and Impulsors are, and actually less flimsy point-for-point. The idea that Dark Eldar are glass cannons and need to die as soon as the enemy looks at them is not only silly on the face of it (after all, speed can be a form of durability depending on how the units are used on the table) but also isn't even true.

The Drukhari previews illustrate, undeniably, escalating lethality to match the escalating durability of Marines. I don't think that's refutable by a cogent argument, and escalating lethality is the last thing 40k needs.

If people want Marines to feel durable, they have to make MEQ units not the most common foe on balance. The issue with Marine durability is everyone tailors against them by default, because they're the default foe. Marines are victims of their own success.

I mean, this would be an argument if it wasn't just wrong.

34 bolt rifles (ignoring chapter tactics, reroll auras, doctrines, etc, assuming 2 shots at base marine BS) to kill a Raider @85pts: 2.51pts/rifle.
27 bolt rifles to kill a Venom @70pts, 2.59pts/rifle
50 bolt rifles to kill an Impulsor @110pts, 2.2pts/rifle
45 bolt rifles to kill a Rhino@80pts, 1.78pts/rifle

Boy, I hope nobody does the comparison on Heavy Bolters or Autocannons vs those vehicles and finds out that marine vehicles are twice as durable!

Why is your math so different, I don't get it?
to kill a Raider, it's 45 hits by my reckoning, assuming AP-2 (for turns 2 and 3)
to kill a Rhino, it is also 45 hits, assuming AP -2 (for turns 2 and 3)
They both get wounded on 5s, have a 5+ save, and are 10 wounds, right?

my mistake was assuming a raider cost less than a Rhino, which I guess was in error. I forgot how cheap Marine vehicles were, apparently

 vipoid wrote:
I've seen villains in Saturday-morning cartoons who get more victories than the evil 40k factions.

What do you think a villain victory in 40k would look like?

-Guardsman- wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I've seen villains in Saturday-morning cartoons who get more victories than the evil 40k factions.

What do you think a villain victory in 40k would look like?

Well obviously it will depend on the villain, as a Tyranid victory would be rather different to a Chaos or DE one.

But to put it in the broadest, simplest terms, the heroes lose. Whatever planet/colony/system they were fighting for is lost. The heroes die.

And when I say "heroes", I mean actual relevant characters, not "Random NPC guy who has never before been mentioned in the lore and exists purely so that he can be killed off with absolutely no consequences whatsoever."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually think raiders and venoms are more durable (per point, since that needs to be said) in a marine meta than things like Rhinos or Impulsors.

They don't pay for a 3+ armor save they aren't using, they have an invuln against Melta, they're high enough toughness that Bolters still wound on 5s (same as Rhinos and Impulsors) but they don't pay for T7, and they have just as many wounds as Rhinos and Impulsors.

Doesn't change the fact that those Primaris are going to rip through those Raiders and Venoms with ease(rate of fire and AP) while kabalites will have a hard time killing that rhino/Impulsor with their poison weapons. Where, btw, the rhinos are going to be using that 3+ save to great effect as poison weapons aren't exactly armor piercing much these days.

Also a single melta shot is more likely going to kill a venom that fails its save, whereas a dark lance is maybe going to do 6 damage(not enough to kill a rhino or Impulsor) or 1 damage. Plus the Dark Lance is a heavy weapon which means -1 to hit for that Warrior if they move.

That's before we take into account that the Space Marines have T4-5 on their infantry with 3+ save being the average whereas Dark Eldar are T3 with 5+ save on average and a 6+++ that will save the occasional wound. There is a reason why Prophets of Flesh is such a crutch right now as it is one of the few things providing the faction with any durability.

The post I was replying to (of yours) specifically said that Primaris with bolters will be ripping up those flimsy tanks.

I am, of course, pointing out that those "flimsy tanks" are exactly as flimsy to Primaris bolters as Rhinos and Impulsors are, and actually less flimsy point-for-point. The idea that Dark Eldar are glass cannons and need to die as soon as the enemy looks at them is not only silly on the face of it (after all, speed can be a form of durability depending on how the units are used on the table) but also isn't even true.

The Drukhari previews illustrate, undeniably, escalating lethality to match the escalating durability of Marines. I don't think that's refutable by a cogent argument, and escalating lethality is the last thing 40k needs.

If people want Marines to feel durable, they have to make MEQ units not the most common foe on balance. The issue with Marine durability is everyone tailors against them by default, because they're the default foe. Marines are victims of their own success.

I mean, this would be an argument if it wasn't just wrong.

34 bolt rifles (ignoring chapter tactics, reroll auras, doctrines, etc, assuming 2 shots at base marine BS) to kill a Raider @85pts: 2.51pts/rifle.
27 bolt rifles to kill a Venom @70pts, 2.59pts/rifle
50 bolt rifles to kill an Impulsor @110pts, 2.2pts/rifle
45 bolt rifles to kill a Rhino@80pts, 1.78pts/rifle

Boy, I hope nobody does the comparison on Heavy Bolters or Autocannons vs those vehicles and finds out that marine vehicles are twice as durable!

Why is your math so different, I don't get it?
to kill a Raider, it's 45 hits by my reckoning, assuming AP-2 (for turns 2 and 3)
to kill a Rhino, it is also 45 hits, assuming AP -2 (for turns 2 and 3)
They both get wounded on 5s, have a 5+ save, and are 10 wounds, right?

my mistake was assuming a raider cost less than a Rhino, which I guess was in error. I forgot how cheap Marine vehicles were, apparently

Sigh...because you can't take into account any of the almost-always-on special rules marines generally get when comparing their stats without incurring a chorus of rage. I'm trying to make a simple comparison with a simple weapon statline without getting into "whatabout this and whatabout that" so I ignored doctrines, CTs, Rerolls, strats, whatever.

In reality, space marine vehicles are more durable per point than drukhari vehicles against anything below a missile launcher, and the number of defensive stratagems available for marine vehicles to use is both greater and they are more effective per CP spent. most notably, marine transports get -1 to hit for 1cp, and only Raiders can use -1 to hit for 2CP (Venoms now cannot use it 99% of the time because -1 to hit is part of their defensive profile).

I got 34 bolt rifles by:

2 (shots) *.666 (hits) *.333 (wounds) *.666 (Failed saves) = .295 wounds per rifle, 10 wounds/.295 = 33.89, rounded up to 34.

Karol wrote:
The problem is, unless it is a new codex for a niche faction, GW tends to not do option by option changes. When they went and did the +1W for marines, the only loyalist marines faction that did not get it were GK.

If they made the double wound thing for all factions, it would more or less had to be done for everyone. Or we would be in a situation where some stuff costs the same it did before the change, but has half the wounds, while other stuff has double the wounds, but the cost changing is going to happen to its stuff in 8-12 months when a new codex comes, out.
Plus somehting as big as this, seems to be only possible at an edition or design paradigma shift. Now I don't know how far in the future GW is with their rules, but I assume the codex for next year are all or at least most already writen. So even if GW decided on it today, the first book with such a change would be seen in 1+ year. If we were lucky.

i am again talking from an "ideal situation" point of view. 9th shouldve been released all at once, not drip fed like it currently is. GK and CSM SHOULD have had their second wound at the same time that loyalists did. I know its too late and won't happen now. But if i had to design 10th from scratch, i'd start by making vehicles have a lot more wounds than infantry squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

-Guardsman- wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I've seen villains in Saturday-morning cartoons who get more victories than the evil 40k factions.

What do you think a villain victory in 40k would look like?

Well obviously it will depend on the villain, as a Tyranid victory would be rather different to a Chaos or DE one.

But to put it in the broadest, simplest terms, the heroes lose. Whatever planet/colony/system they were fighting for is lost. The heroes die.

And when I say "heroes", I mean actual relevant characters, not "Random NPC guy who has never before been mentioned in the lore and exists purely so that he can be killed off with absolutely no consequences whatsoever."

so Cadia basically?

[quote=the_scotsman 793948 10992026 null
2 (shots) *.666 (hits) *.333 (wounds) *.666 (Failed saves) = .295 wounds per rifle, 10 wounds/.295 = 33.89, rounded up to 34.

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's from the 'current' AdMech book. Zero mention of Typhus and Drukhari.

Heck, Typhus' First Plague Company isn't even listed in that order of battle! The two Plague Companies mentioned(7th and 3rd) are "Mortarion's <insert here>". 7th are the "Mortarion's Sons" and consist of his 'chosen' and the 3rd are "Mortarion's Anvil".

Yeah, I know re: all of this. Details change between editions though, and GW have been doing this sort of thing since 8th began, e.g. as with some parts of PA, to fill in the "Indomitus" timeline. They pick up references and flesh them out. But if you seriously think this isn't the same event...well, I have some magic beans I'd like to sell you

 Marshal Loss wrote:

Yeah, I know re: all of this. Details change between editions though, and GW have been doing this sort of thing since 8th began, e.g. as with some parts of PA, to fill in the "Indomitus" timeline. They pick up references and flesh them out. But if you seriously think this isn't the same event...well, I have some magic beans I'd like to sell you

Literally no mention of Typhus and his 1st Plague Company or the Drukhari...and you're insisting this is just a "fleshing out"?
I mean, I guess there's no way it could possibly be a follow-up assault launched by Abaddon alongside of Typhus right?

Mortarion tried and failed. It's entirely feasible that we're seeing a Black Legion/Death Guard 'Traveller's Fleet' teamup, if only to try to succeed where Mortarion failed.

 vipoid wrote:
Well obviously it will depend on the villain, as a Tyranid victory would be rather different to a Chaos or DE one.

But to put it in the broadest, simplest terms, the heroes lose. Whatever planet/colony/system they were fighting for is lost. The heroes die.

And when I say "heroes", I mean actual relevant characters, not "Random NPC guy who has never before been mentioned in the lore and exists purely so that he can be killed off with absolutely no consequences whatsoever."

GW is not going to kill off characters that have models currently in production. That goes not only for the heroes but also for the villains. And yes, it leads to silly situations (such Grimgor's inexplicable mercy towards Archaon in the last battle of the Storm of Chaos), but it makes sense for a miniature manufacturer.

Some evil factions just cannot be allowed to "win", because their victory would mean the end of Warhammer 40,000 as an interesting setting. Tyranids want to turn all non-Tyranid organic material in the galaxy into more Tyranids, so obviously, their invasions are eventually going to be driven back (always at a very high cost). Other evil factions may have definitions of victory that do not really account for how much territory is gained or lost. E.g., as long as the Drukhari took enough slaves, their raid was worthwhile. Chaos may fail to take Terra, but as long as enough blood flows, Khorne will call it a win, and the damage inflicted is just one more crack in the crumbling Imperium.

No one in Warhammer 40,000 ever really gets to enjoy the spoils of victory. At best, they survive to fight another day.

.

Heroes are not going to die while there are plastic bodies of them to sell.

But yes. I'd like to see the universe map of 40k change. I can see the argument against this (i.e. I'm literally the only Metallica Ad Mech player, GW has nuked my army - "nooooo") but its soft.

I mean I don't expect Chaos/Necrons/Tyranids/Orks/United Eldar Exarchate to go conquer Terra. But the areas of space under their control should I think expand and shrink in a more noticeable, tactile way through the years.

Rather than "they turned up and stuff happened but in the grand scheme no one cared."

I mean Cadia is the example. Theoretically this should have been a big thing, Chaos can pour out of the Eye of Terror unchecked. Whole systems are going to inevitably fall because they can't be defended. Nah, not really. I mean there is this weird warpstorm across the Imperium, but anywhere you've heard of is strangely fine (or on the verge of defeat pending Primaris reinforcements). And the Cadians got a fancy meme out of it.

I mean as per the above, I don't think you should kid yourself, but evidence Chaos etc have actually made up some ground would be more meaningful to me than "they've turned up and messed up planet redshirt then run off".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

Yeah, I know re: all of this. Details change between editions though, and GW have been doing this sort of thing since 8th began, e.g. as with some parts of PA, to fill in the "Indomitus" timeline. They pick up references and flesh them out. But if you seriously think this isn't the same event...well, I have some magic beans I'd like to sell you

Literally no mention of Typhus and his 1st Plague Company or the Drukhari...and you're insisting this is just a "fleshing out"?

I mean, no way it could possibly be a follow-up assault launched by Abaddon alongside of Typhus right?

The reference in the codex I posted refers only to Metalica itself, while the new supplement covers wars fought throughout the entire system. Dark Eldar are raiders and are thus unlikely to be a part of any major pitched invasion and may never set foot on the Forge World itself throughout the book. And yeah, I do think that throwing Typhus' name at the top is "fleshing out". Typhus is Abaddon's point man. Yeah, it could conceivably be a second invasion, but that doesn't seem very likely when GW's entire modus operandi with these kinds of books has been to fill in the giant gaping hole that is the Era Indomitus.

But hey bud if you can look at GW taking codex references and fleshing them out as part of the Indomitus era in the PA books and still think that there just happened to have been an earlier invasion in the Indomitus era by the exact same forces involved in the upcoming book, bar only a xenos faction that isn't exactly famous for making headlines, good for you. I'm sure this story will be full of shocks and twists right up your alley

-Guardsman- wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Well obviously it will depend on the villain, as a Tyranid victory would be rather different to a Chaos or DE one.

But to put it in the broadest, simplest terms, the heroes lose. Whatever planet/colony/system they were fighting for is lost. The heroes die.

And when I say "heroes", I mean actual relevant characters, not "Random NPC guy who has never before been mentioned in the lore and exists purely so that he can be killed off with absolutely no consequences whatsoever."

GW is not going to kill off characters that have models currently in production. That goes not only for the heroes but also for the villains. And yes, it leads to silly situations (such Grimgor's inexplicable mercy towards Archaon in the last battle of the Storm of Chaos), but it makes sense for a miniature manufacturer.

Some evil factions just cannot be allowed to "win", because their victory would mean the end of Warhammer 40,000 as an interesting setting. Tyranids want to turn all non-Tyranid organic material in the galaxy into more Tyranids, so obviously, their invasions are eventually going to be driven back (always at a very high cost). Other evil factions may have definitions of victory that do not really account for how much territory is gained or lost. E.g., as long as the Drukhari took enough slaves, their raid was worthwhile. Chaos may fail to take Terra, but as long as enough blood flows, Khorne will call it a win, and the damage inflicted is just one more crack in the crumbling Imperium.

No one in Warhammer 40,000 ever really gets to enjoy the spoils of victory. At best, they survive to fight another day.

.

GW literally constructs the lore such that they can freely kill off all their villainous named characters and none of their good named characters, though.

Drukhari: Can be resurrected freely when killed (unless killed by magic mary sue ynnari magic)

Necrons: Can be resurrected freely when killed (phase-out and repair)

Tyranids: can be reincarnated freely when killed (hive mind spits out another)

Daemons/Chaos Marines: Just get banished into the warp when killed

Orks: Can be blown up/beheaded/dismembered and survive thanks to orkiness (see Ghaz most recently)

GW has constructed a setting where they've literally saturday morning cartoonized to the point where ALL the villains can die, and none of the heroes can die. It's the most extreme, ridiculous version of the reason GRR Martin took it upon himself to write game of thrones: You know that when ANY good guy named character fights ANY bad guy named character, the bad guy must lose if the good guy character has a model. There is one sole exception that currently exists, and it's Celestine.

Typhus – wayward son of Mortarion, favoured of Nurgle, and host to the Destroyer Hive – seeks to exploit a weakened Imperium and claim the forge world Metalica for his own nefarious purposes. Standing against him are the Adeptus Mechanicus, and their epic battles will play out in War Zone Charadon Act 1: The Book of Rust. Heroes will stand, worlds will fall, and an entire system stands on a knife-edge.

There’s more than just the background of an epic war zone in here, the book also includes new rules for:

Death Guard
Adeptus Mechanicus
Imperial Knights
Drukhari
The warriors of Commorragh are keen to take advantage of the chaos and confusion caused by Typhus’ invasion. Alongside these codex supplements are rules for playing through the Charadon campaign yourself. Can you claim Metalica for the Death Guard or will you try to stop Typhus?

Funny how there's zero mention of Mortarion, who per your own snippet has his two favored Plague Companies on the field(3+7), but it makes a big mention of the Drukhari and Typhus both.

Also, I'd highly suggest you read on a bit further. Metalica sends aid to the Ultramar system...which makes it, again, a perfect time for a follow-on strike.

Yes, the person blissfully unaware of how GW has been approaching the Era Indomitus and unable to interact or rebut a single point beyond "AS THIS PARAGRAPH IS NOT IDENTICAL, YOU MUST BE WRONG" is the one telling others to read more. Clearly this is not at all the same campaign. GW also haven't spent the last year using similar references as the basis for their campaign books and we'll no doubt see characters die, the Forge World of Metalica change hands, and the Dark Eldar have a starring role. Eye-opening stuff!

For the record, I hope I'm wrong & you're right but expect to be proven correct here for the reasons I have outlined above. Not sure why so much of this is hard to digest; GW regularly take references like this and flesh them out. Sometimes things get changed, removed, or added. They've been doing it constantly over the last year. Unless/until we get something from GW saying this campaign is taking place in the present era or overtly stating that there just happens to be a second invasion by the same factions, my case is the safest assumption, especially given that the campaign that Metalica sends forces to in the wake of that invasion which you highlighted - wait for it - features Typhus, whom we know had been there from the beginning (but hey, I need to read more). At least your own personal brand of naivety will ensure that the story remains exciting regardless even should I be proven right

edit x3: spelling, curse my phone

-Guardsman- wrote:

GW is not going to kill off characters that have models currently in production.

And this is the problem with the 40k universe.

You cannot tell grimdark stories when you are unwilling to kill off any of the heroes.

-Guardsman- wrote:
That goes not only for the heroes but also for the villains. And yes, it leads to silly situations (such Grimgor's inexplicable mercy towards Archaon in the last battle of the Storm of Chaos), but it makes sense for a miniature manufacturer..

Er... you do remember that this is the same company that made WHFB, right?

Go ahead and read the last Vampire Counts army book and see how many of the named characters were actually still alive in the fluff.

-Guardsman- wrote:

Some evil factions just cannot be allowed to "win", because their victory would mean the end of Warhammer 40,000 as an interesting setting. Tyranids want to turn all non-Tyranid organic material in the galaxy into more Tyranids, so obviously, their invasions are eventually going to be driven back (always at a very high cost). Other evil factions may have definitions of victory that do not really account for how much territory is gained or lost. E.g., as long as the Drukhari took enough slaves, their raid was worthwhile. Chaos may fail to take Terra, but as long as enough blood flows, Khorne will call it a win, and the damage inflicted is just one more crack in the crumbling Imperium..

Again, I didn't demand that they win the entire setting. You can have the villains win battles without them also winning the overall war.

If the heroes win every meaningful engagement and never, ever die, then why even bother having stories? Because at this point there's more tension in an episode of My Little Pony.

Enjoy shouting at the void. I'm done.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Quite frankly units like Incubi and Praetorians should obliterate your standard Marine.

Remember when Necron Warriors were tougher than a basic Astartes?

Well to be fair when Necrons started they didn't really have much. Warriors, Immortals, Destoyers, Lord, Monolith, Spyders and Scarabs and even then a good few of them didn't appear till later. When you've a very limited roster you've either got to go for mass numbers or elites and since Necrons were all metal without any plastic save the Monolith, it made more sense to have them more elite than cheap.

As the range expanded the warriors moved down to give space to more elite styles of troop above them. We've seen that happen in many armies where a unit moves around. The Carnifex in Tyranids was once THE biggest thread save for a Hive Tyrant; today its actually quite a modest heavy unit and more of a jack of all trades; whilst the Tyranid army has bigger specialists in key slots now. Heck the model even feels small by modern standards of things like Trygons, Tervigons, Exocrines etc...

And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

I've never understood GW's aversion to making Tyranid monsters tougher than the T6-7 range they seem perpetually stuck in. As if bolters wounding them on 6's is some form of rule-writing sacrilege they can't cross. Tyranid monsters need wound/toughness boosts across the board, make Nidzilla great again!

 Grimskul wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

I've never understood GW's aversion to making Tyranid monsters tougher than the T6-7 range they seem perpetually stuck in. As if bolters wounding them on 6's is some form of rule-writing sacrilege they can't cross. Tyranid monsters need wound/toughness boosts across the board, make Nidzilla great again!

They're not Astartes. That's it. They need Little Timmy to feel like even the scariest alien monsters are no match for his glorious Primaris.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

because carnifexes are made to be one of the toughest "battle tank" unit the tyranids create while rhinos are meant to be a metal box that carries troops?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

because carnifexes are made to be one of the toughest "battle tank" unit the tyranids create while rhinos are meant to be a metal box that carries troops?

So why shouldn't said metal box be tough enough to do that? They do literally nothing else.

 Grimskul wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

I've never understood GW's aversion to making Tyranid monsters tougher than the T6-7 range they seem perpetually stuck in. As if bolters wounding them on 6's is some form of rule-writing sacrilege they can't cross. Tyranid monsters need wound/toughness boosts across the board, make Nidzilla great again!

I think part of the issue is that the toughness ceiling has been artificially capped at 8, so there's a lot less room at the top of the scale than there really should be.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

because carnifexes are made to be one of the toughest "battle tank" unit the tyranids create while rhinos are meant to be a metal box that carries troops?

So why shouldn't said metal box be tough enough to do that? They do literally nothing else.

They both should. The difference is that Tyranids have NO resilient unit, no matter their role when in the lore, a single nids monster is portrayed as much more resilient than on the tabletop. Marine right now are in a pretty good place right now and tyranids are down the gutter. Distraction carnifexes should come back and actually be playable.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

because carnifexes are made to be one of the toughest "battle tank" unit the tyranids create while rhinos are meant to be a metal box that carries troops?

So why shouldn't said metal box be tough enough to do that? They do literally nothing else.

No one is saying Rhinos should be fragile. But that Carnifexes should be tougher.

 JNAProductions wrote:
No one is saying Rhinos should be fragile. But that Carnifexes should be tougher.

Yeah I would have thought that obvious, but I guess not.

Rhinos are fine. Rhinos can continue Rhinoing as long as they want. The only real problem with Rhinos isn't a problem with Rhinos, but more GW's terrible game design. I'm talking about Smoke Launchers being a Strat rather than equipment. But that's a whole other conversation.

But Carnifexes should be tougher than fething Rhinos. I'd put them to T7 and give 'em a 2+ Save. Make it one of the rare 2+ saves in the 'Nid 'Dex.

If nids get the kind of customizability they had in my old 2e/3e codex with things like extended carapace for extra pip of save I might finally take the plundge

Maybe im just got those nostalgia rose tinted glasses

I hope Nids get the "they finally play like the lore" treatment and the Loyalists here all take the high road they told us we should have during the worst of the Marine fandex derailment of 8th.

 vipoid wrote:


I've seen villains in Saturday-morning cartoons who get more victories than the evil 40k factions.

The heroes also get more victories. In 40K rarely does anyone win. It’s usually a stalemate and/or exterminatus.

 Eldarain wrote:
I hope Nids get the "they finally play like the lore" treatment and the Loyalists here all take the high road they told us we should have during the worst of the Marine fandex derailment of 8th.

Unfortunately they've added rules to 9th that makes anything in a squad size larger than 5 count as a "horde" for the purposes of blast weapons and coherency, so we are penalised just for playing the army the way it is intended.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

I mean yes, obviously, way more. A rhino is like 80pts, I don't know how much lower than 100 a carnifex can be, and a rhino has like +1T +2W over a carnifex.

So yeah, it's gonna be more durable. The main problem with carnifexes though is their miserable damage output. A carnifex on the charge deals like 2w to a rhino compared to a similarly priced dreadnought dealing like 7.

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

I mean yes, obviously, way more. A rhino is like 80pts, I don't know how much lower than 100 a carnifex can be, and a rhino has like +1T +2W over a carnifex.

So yeah, it's gonna be more durable. The main problem with carnifexes though is their miserable damage output. A carnifex on the charge deals like 2w to a rhino compared to a similarly priced dreadnought dealing like 7.

A carnifex and a rhino are both toughness 7.

But yes carnifexes hit like wet noodles for their point costs. Monstrous scything talons not doing much against vehicles wouldn't be so bad if their high strength option, the crushing talons, didn't make them hit on fething fives.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

I mean yes, obviously, way more. A rhino is like 80pts, I don't know how much lower than 100 a carnifex can be, and a rhino has like +1T +2W over a carnifex.

So yeah, it's gonna be more durable. The main problem with carnifexes though is their miserable damage output. A carnifex on the charge deals like 2w to a rhino compared to a similarly priced dreadnought dealing like 7.

A carnifex and a rhino are both toughness 7.

But yes carnifexes hit like wet noodles for their point costs. Monstrous scything talons not doing much against vehicles wouldn't be so bad if their high strength option, the crushing talons, didn't make them hit on fething fives.

This. They claim that Nids are supposed to be masters of CC combat, yet the best you ever get to hit is a 4+ unless it's done by some weird character or rule stacking. GW seems to be TERRIFIED of letting nids hit on a 3+ in CC.

Well they appear to be letting Daemon Engines hit more often than a Guardsman, so maybe they'll do the same for Tyranids?

I would love for Carnifexes to have WS3+, no penalty on the Crushing Claws and D6+2 damage against vehicles.

And a 2+ save!!!

 Togusa wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

I mean yes, obviously, way more. A rhino is like 80pts, I don't know how much lower than 100 a carnifex can be, and a rhino has like +1T +2W over a carnifex.

So yeah, it's gonna be more durable. The main problem with carnifexes though is their miserable damage output. A carnifex on the charge deals like 2w to a rhino compared to a similarly priced dreadnought dealing like 7.

A carnifex and a rhino are both toughness 7.

But yes carnifexes hit like wet noodles for their point costs. Monstrous scything talons not doing much against vehicles wouldn't be so bad if their high strength option, the crushing talons, didn't make them hit on fething fives.

This. They claim that Nids are supposed to be masters of CC combat, yet the best you ever get to hit is a 4+ unless it's done by some weird character or rule stacking. GW seems to be TERRIFIED of letting nids hit on a 3+ in CC.

Kids are actually better in shooting than they are in combat at the current time. Their shooting are actually even better than Space Marine with the only exception in the period when Eradicators had already been introduced while Aggresors have not been nerfed into oblivion.

So yes, that is very "anti narrative".

 Togusa wrote:


This. They claim that Nids are supposed to be masters of CC combat, yet the best you ever get to hit is a 4+ unless it's done by some weird character or rule stacking. GW seems to be TERRIFIED of letting nids hit on a 3+ in CC.

I thought it was more that Cruddace still works for them and hates 'Nids?

I was going to play Tyranids when I started back at this thing we call a hobby but I couldn’t get over how un-Tyranid-like they seem now. The models are mostly cool but Carnifexes used to be so cool, it’s sad to see what they’ve become.

 Overread wrote:
Well to be fair when Necrons started they didn't really have much. Warriors, Immortals, Destoyers, Lord, Monolith, Spyders and Scarabs and even then a good few of them didn't appear till later. When you've a very limited roster you've either got to go for mass numbers or elites and since Necrons were all metal without any plastic save the Monolith, it made more sense to have them more elite than cheap.

Incorrect.
Prior to our 2002 3rd ed codex we Necron players had:
1 Lord (on foot with staff),
Warriors,
Immortals,
Scarabs,
Destroyers (of wich the Heavy was a per squad upgrade & had no separate model).
Our Wargear options (of wich no bitz existed for) for the Lord consisted of the Resurrection Orb, the Veil of Darkness, the Gaze of Flame & Scourge of Light.
The only plastic involved was the bases & the flight stands)
Our list(s) (one for 2e, then for 3e, & some wargear additions) were in the pages of White Dwarf from #216/217/218, #230, & #239 - and then a few years wait for the 3e Codex.

Spyders, Monoliths, Heavy Destroyer models, Lords with different wargear represented, Destroyer Lords, Wraiths, Flayed Ones, Pariahs, PLASTIC Destroyers, PLASTIC Warriors, Nightbringer, Deceiver, & increased wargear options came along in our 3rd ed Codex (2002)

 Togusa wrote:


This. They claim that Nids are supposed to be masters of CC combat, yet the best you ever get to hit is a 4+ unless it's done by some weird character or rule stacking. GW seems to be TERRIFIED of letting nids hit on a 3+ in CC.

There are a lot of units and armies that take dispute with that claim of being the masters of CC. Genestealers are up there certainly but Nids are usually displayed as masters of dragging you down beneath endless swarms of literally disposable bodies and hitting something with a stick/claw requires less waste and bio-engineering than making a gun.

I think GW's thought process was to keep a difference between monsters and vehicles/ tanks. Therefore former tanks like a rhino became T7 while all those Tyranid monsters stayed at 6, because they aren't tanks. Just a matter of edition transfer. You might argue that that logic doesn't work when looking at Xenos tanks and comparing them to the monsters and you'd be absolutely correct.GW is not known for consistency . Or they just like their metal boxes that's why the Rhino came out pretty tough in 8th.
Since GW was more willing to rework weapons in 9th instead of using the translated profiles from 3rd - 7th in 8th, I could see them giving those monsters higher T values.

Dudeface wrote:

 Togusa wrote:


This. They claim that Nids are supposed to be masters of CC combat, yet the best you ever get to hit is a 4+ unless it's done by some weird character or rule stacking. GW seems to be TERRIFIED of letting nids hit on a 3+ in CC.

There are a lot of units and armies that take dispute with that claim of being the masters of CC. Genestealers are up there certainly but Nids are usually displayed as masters of dragging you down beneath endless swarms of literally disposable bodies and hitting something with a stick/claw requires less waste and bio-engineering than making a gun.

This is true to an extent, but there has also been a significant degradation of the Carnifex's statline.

Now, granted, it was never particularly skilled. However, it used to be S9/10 and ignored all armour saves in melee regardless of what weapons it was armed with. It tore apart vehicles with ease and even a single would would instant-death any character that wasn't T6+.

Now though, its strength has almost halved, if you give it 2 ranged weapons then it becomes utter garbage in melee, and even if you give it melee weapons it's still pretty weak.

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Togusa wrote:


This. They claim that Nids are supposed to be masters of CC combat, yet the best you ever get to hit is a 4+ unless it's done by some weird character or rule stacking. GW seems to be TERRIFIED of letting nids hit on a 3+ in CC.

There are a lot of units and armies that take dispute with that claim of being the masters of CC. Genestealers are up there certainly but Nids are usually displayed as masters of dragging you down beneath endless swarms of literally disposable bodies and hitting something with a stick/claw requires less waste and bio-engineering than making a gun.

This is true to an extent, but there has also been a significant degradation of the Carnifex's statline.

Now, granted, it was never particularly skilled. However, it used to be S9/10 and ignored all armour saves in melee regardless of what weapons it was armed with. It tore apart vehicles with ease and even a single would would instant-death any character that wasn't T6+.

Now though, its strength has almost halved, if you give it 2 ranged weapons then it becomes utter garbage in melee, and even if you give it melee weapons it's still pretty weak.

It's the one part of monstrous creatures I kind of wish they'd look back to, they were actually scary to be in a fight with most of the time because you knew it was capable of slam dunking your dudes with each hit, even if it had low attacks it could still threaten expensive infantry or vehicles.

I just checked the stats of a carnifex and holy crap, those are bad
A choice of 4 attacks S12 hitting on 5s or S6 hitting on 4s? Fething plague marines can be massively better and cheaper in combat than that.

They should be *at least* as powerful as a dread or helbrute in combat, this is a bad joke.

Index rules problems really.

I'd expect Carnifexes - and Tyranids in general - to be changed to WS 3+.

Realistically though the Carnifex is always slightly screwed I think because of scale creep. I mean the Toxicrene/Mawloc/Trygon/Haruspex/Maleceptor are all there as "bigger melee beat stick variants". So you can only be so powerful in an absolute sense.

Dudeface wrote:

 Togusa wrote:


This. They claim that Nids are supposed to be masters of CC combat, yet the best you ever get to hit is a 4+ unless it's done by some weird character or rule stacking. GW seems to be TERRIFIED of letting nids hit on a 3+ in CC.

There are a lot of units and armies that take dispute with that claim of being the masters of CC. Genestealers are up there certainly but Nids are usually displayed as masters of dragging you down beneath endless swarms of literally disposable bodies and hitting something with a stick/claw requires less waste and bio-engineering than making a gun.

Lmao, so a Haruspex has hyper-evolved to the apex of being a big dumb fat slow stupid idiot? Nids MCs are some of the worst jokes in the game; a Carnifex is actually one of the better ones, that's the ignominy. To be fair, there are plenty of Nids that do hit on 3s in melee (Stealers (which can go to 2+), Warriors, Tyrant Guard, etc.), they're just all mid-sized. It's the melee MCs that are the utter jokes (and GW is aware, hence the Blood of Baal-specific strats that still didn't lift them to more than mediocre). I'll add that the Haruspex is my favorite model in the game, it's why I feel very passionate about this.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I think GW's thought process was to keep a difference between monsters and vehicles/ tanks. Therefore former tanks like a rhino became T7 while all those Tyranid monsters stayed at 6, because they aren't tanks. Just a matter of edition transfer. You might argue that that logic doesn't work when looking at Xenos tanks and comparing them to the monsters and you'd be absolutely correct.GW is not known for consistency . Or they just like their metal boxes that's why the Rhino came out pretty tough in 8th.
Since GW was more willing to rework weapons in 9th instead of using the translated profiles from 3rd - 7th in 8th, I could see them giving those monsters higher T values.

Hive tyrants, carnifexes (all variants), toxicrenes, and harridans are all T7. Tervigons, haruspexes, exocrines, tyrannofexes, hierodules, and hierophants are all T8.

There are more big bugs T7+ than there are T6.

I think the problem the Carnifex has is its role and position has changed. In older games it was THE massive monster after a Hive Tyrant; you feared the fex because it was the biggest, baddest and heavily versatile beast. It was a close combat monster all the way to artillery platform and every role inbetween.

Today its a bit stuck. You've got exocrines for artillery; you've got tervigons for support; trygons and mawlocks for close combat sneak attacks; haurspex for heavy close combat; tyranofex for heavy hitting.

The Carnifex used to do most of these roles depending on what loadout you gave it. So in some way its taken a step down because other things have stepped into the very slots and roles the fex used to occupy. It's trapped between warriors, who do much the same with cheaper points and numbers; and higher cost single big elite style monsters.

Make the fex too weak and people don't want it; make it too good and it overshadows the "better" options. Or those better options become so good they have very high costs which makes them unsuitable to take in more than one-off per army situations.


In a way Tyranids have suffered with their fantastic model expansions because they've gained a lot of big elites. Because warriors and fex are so multi-role with tehir weapon options, Tyranids haven't had the mid-level explosion of model options that other armies have seen.

 Jidmah wrote:
I just checked the stats of a carnifex and holy crap, those are bad
A choice of 4 attacks S12 hitting on 5s or S6 hitting on 4s? Fething plague marines can be massively better and cheaper in combat than that.

They should be *at least* as powerful as a dread or helbrute in combat, this is a bad joke.

The problem at this point is, pound for pound if you compare a dreadnought to any of the 'dread-likes' across various factions (Carnifex, Deff Dread, Talos Pain Engine, Wraithlord) dreadnoughts wipe the absolute floor with every single one of them in both defense and offense despite costing the same (or less).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:



In a way Tyranids have suffered with their fantastic model expansions because they've gained a lot of big elites. Because warriors and fex are so multi-role with tehir weapon options, Tyranids haven't had the mid-level explosion of model options that other armies have seen.

Model expansions, lets remind everyone, the last of which was in 2014.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I think GW's thought process was to keep a difference between monsters and vehicles/ tanks. Therefore former tanks like a rhino became T7 while all those Tyranid monsters stayed at 6, because they aren't tanks. Just a matter of edition transfer. You might argue that that logic doesn't work when looking at Xenos tanks and comparing them to the monsters and you'd be absolutely correct.GW is not known for consistency . Or they just like their metal boxes that's why the Rhino came out pretty tough in 8th.
Since GW was more willing to rework weapons in 9th instead of using the translated profiles from 3rd - 7th in 8th, I could see them giving those monsters higher T values.

Hive tyrants, carnifexes (all variants), toxicrenes, and harridans are all T7. Tervigons, haruspexes, exocrines, tyrannofexes, hierodules, and hierophants are all T8.

There are more big bugs T7+ than there are T6.

Ha, I guess you cought me having no idea of tyranids at all and just trying to make sense of dakkaposts and find a GW reasoning were apparently there is none

the_scotsman wrote:


Model expansions, lets remind everyone, the last of which was in 2014.

Honestly when I look at Tyranids right now I don't see many "gaps" for new concepts. I do see room for replacement plastic kits for things like the pyrovore and lictor and such; I also see room for gw to add some of those specialist "hero/unique" models that they stripped out a while back. But for actual troops/warriors/monsters I don't see many gaps. Perhaps a jump-pack winged shock troop (shrieks) and a big lord of war that isn't from FW. But otherwise the Tyranid range is pretty chunky in terms of what its got.

It's well into the "lets have some new concept gaunt models" rather than adding things.

 Overread wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


Model expansions, lets remind everyone, the last of which was in 2014.

Honestly when I look at Tyranids right now I don't see many "gaps" for new concepts. I do see room for replacement plastic kits for things like the pyrovore and lictor and such; I also see room for gw to add some of those specialist "hero/unique" models that they stripped out a while back. But for actual troops/warriors/monsters I don't see many gaps. Perhaps a jump-pack winged shock troop (shrieks) and a big lord of war that isn't from FW. But otherwise the Tyranid range is pretty chunky in terms of what its got.

It's well into the "lets have some new concept gaunt models" rather than adding things.

This shows up in every post about Nids and I just don't get it. Yes, GW needs to balance what they've already made better, that's not in doubt... but Necrons had a pretty complete plastic range and that didn't stop them from getting a whole host of awesome things, including some resculpts and new concepts. There's ample room to give this to Nids as well, or Eldar/DE, or Orks, or... any Xenos race. Psycho-vores, lictors with ranged weapons, Hive Fleet Behamat "fortress-Nids"... and these are mostly ideas I've stolen from others. The sky is the limit for Xenos factions, really.

The trick is adding diversity without ending up with units that are just outright better at a certain role than another.


Eg lets say GW adds another long range artillery unit like the exocrine which is basically the same but better. Now you've two artillery units, but one of which is superior so guess which one everyone goes for.


It's not that there are no gaps, as I said shrieks, those unique units (eg Parasite of Morteux); replacements (plastic pyrovores please) and updates (eg gaunts with new weapons and gaunts without split heads); are all things regularly asked for and which are options in the army.

There are still gaps, there are still areas to improve. Its just when you look at Tyranids as a whole they are in a pretty good spot; certainly better than Eldar. Even as a tyranid player I'd rather see Eldar get a big update before Tyranids get a big update (which doesn't mean GW can't drip-feed an update here and there)

 Overread wrote:
The trick is adding diversity without ending up with units that are just outright better at a certain role than another.

Which honestly is the trick GW fails at the most. Redundancy and OMG!better or Why-did-you-even-bother is pretty routine for GW units.

The new primaris vehicles being the perfect examples of a roomful of uncomfortable crickets. Instead of enthusiasm, people are awkward about the point cost, the price cost, and the lack of bringing anything new to the table. Plus how long it took to get to the tanks, let alone the speeders. Six brand new datasheets landing with a wet splat.


Part of that is simply the game state- if you can kill heavy infantry, you can kill everything. No other role need apply, beyond maybe some supplementary mass firepower.

Voss wrote:


The new primaris vehicles being the perfect examples of a roomful of uncomfortable crickets. Instead of enthusiasm, people are awkward about the point cost, the price cost, and the lack of bringing anything new to the table. Plus how long it took to get to the tanks, let alone the speeders. Six brand new datasheets landing with a wet splat.
.

Honestly I see Primaris as being in the same bank of marketing as the AoS launch and one-print Dreadfleet. A choice made purely for financial reasons that didn't really pay attention to the "game" nor the customers. I'd wager Primaris were just going to be the new resculpts of marine models; then someone at head office had the idea of releasing them alongside. Which has indeed led to marines having almost two identical rosters of models in the same army. Heck the new Gladiator is a hovering Predator etc....
It does indeed leave the new stuff with a tricky situation of trying to be new, whilst filling the same roles so it will either be outright better or outright worse or just "nothing new" stats wise.

the_scotsman wrote:
The problem at this point is, pound for pound if you compare a dreadnought to any of the 'dread-likes' across various factions (Carnifex, Deff Dread, Talos Pain Engine, Wraithlord) dreadnoughts wipe the absolute floor with every single one of them in both defense and offense despite costing the same (or less).

How is that a problem? It just makes Astartes a more powerful faction, which is a design goal.

Given the scale creep since Carnifex were the living battle tank of the Nids maybe it's time to make them a unit. Suddenly seem a lot more interesting.

Hecaton wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The problem at this point is, pound for pound if you compare a dreadnought to any of the 'dread-likes' across various factions (Carnifex, Deff Dread, Talos Pain Engine, Wraithlord) dreadnoughts wipe the absolute floor with every single one of them in both defense and offense despite costing the same (or less).

How is that a problem? It just makes Astartes a more powerful faction, which is a design goal.

Because of the "costing the same or less" part?

Also, the fact that these units have historically been equivalent, were not comparing dreads to killa kanz or sentinels here.

Overread wrote:The trick is adding diversity without ending up with units that are just outright better at a certain role than another.

Off the top of my head, Tyranids are lacking fast (non-flyer) fire support, tough (for the cost) bullet sponges, non-DSing transports, snipers, infiltrators, or a Knight-equivalent Lord of War.

Even within some of the niches that are already filled, there's room for variation. You use an Exocrine to show that the niche of 'artillery beast' is already taken; well, what about a Dactylis derivative that throws/shoots antipersonnel bombs at the enemy? Give it Blast and an anti-infantry profile and it'd be as far from an Exocrine as a Wyvern is from an Earthshaker.

Hecaton wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The problem at this point is, pound for pound if you compare a dreadnought to any of the 'dread-likes' across various factions (Carnifex, Deff Dread, Talos Pain Engine, Wraithlord) dreadnoughts wipe the absolute floor with every single one of them in both defense and offense despite costing the same (or less).

How is that a problem? It just makes Astartes a more powerful faction, which is a design goal.

I don't know if you're making a joke or what, but making some units objectively better than others for their cost isn't a design goal. More powerful at higher cost, sure. More powerful for the same cost, hell no.

I don't know if you're making a joke or what, but making some units objectively better than others for their cost isn't a design goal. More powerful at higher cost, sure. More powerful for the same cost, hell no.

I don't think it is that easy. Should an army without re-rolls have the same cost of a unit as an army that has access to plenty of them?
What if an elite unit from another faction is 50% of someones troop choices. And the age old question of how much would smash captin be worth, if tau could take one.

Some units can, and often should be cheaper then similar or even the same type of unit from another army. If GW makes a an army without access to majority of heavy support units, and dreads are their heavy weapon teams/tanks, then they shouldn't be paying for them as much as someone who can take havocks like unit or other long support tanks .

Even if that were true, what options do Marines lack?

Let's not turn this into a thread about Marines. Please!

 Overread wrote:
I think the problem the Carnifex has is its role and position has changed. In older games it was THE massive monster after a Hive Tyrant; you feared the fex because it was the biggest, baddest and heavily versatile beast. It was a close combat monster all the way to artillery platform and every role inbetween.

Today its a bit stuck. You've got exocrines for artillery; you've got tervigons for support; trygons and mawlocks for close combat sneak attacks; haurspex for heavy close combat; tyranofex for heavy hitting.

But at the same time GW still acts like the Carnifex is a big deal in the fluff - this monstrously dangerous creature that barrels into enemy lines, sending men and machines flying every which way - and then gives it rules that make it less durable than a frickin' Rhino and unable to cause any real damage.

the_scotsman wrote:
Because of the "costing the same or less" part?

Also, the fact that these units have historically been equivalent, were not comparing dreads to killa kanz or sentinels here.

Dreadnoughts are supposed to be overpowered, for their points cost, compared to Carnifexes. Clearly. The Astartes faction, as a whole, is supposed to win more than other factions in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
I don't know if you're making a joke or what, but making some units objectively better than others for their cost isn't a design goal. More powerful at higher cost, sure. More powerful for the same cost, hell no.

It's a *bad* design goal, but it's pretty clear that it's GW's plan.