Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Crimson wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
To those who don't believe the new Havoc rules are sales related I ask if you believe it's a coincidence that the new, previously unheard of weapon just happens to be the best from a damage output (and likely, therefore, competitive) standpoint and just happens to be the only singular heavy weapon in the new kit?

Most likely yes. If new models consistently had powerful rules you would have a case, but that most definitely is not the case. Or how are you liken your new OP Ork buggies?

I explained this in my post, the part you didn't quote.

They decided that the buggies would sell regardless of their rules (and likely were right).

Generally they give the better rules to resculpts to encourage players that have a ton of the older sculpts to reinvest in the new shiny models. It's more obvious when they give the new sculpts a weapon that just so happens to be incredible or for which there was no previous analogue. Such as the "Dread Bell" or whatever it's called for the GUO or the chaincannon here.

 Galas wrote:
You know by this reasoing you'll always end up being right, no?
If a model comes with great rules "It was a marketing ploy"
If a model comes with bad rules "They knew it would sell nonetheless"


We have proof sometimes the direction gives order to the rules writters to make something OP like 7th Wraitknight, as that old GW rules writer addmited on his reddit AMA. But I don't think most of the time thats what really happens. I can see how in this specific case it could have been something planned. Maybe something like "If we are gonna greenlight doing this old resin kit in plastic then we'll need for it to sell well enough".

Agreed. It's happened before, it's happening now and it'll happen again.

Oh, it's 100% sales related...same reason Primaris are different rather than a revised and updated classical line of marines. GW knows that despite marines always selling well --- a lot of people were getting to the point of having completed armies of basic Space Marines, so what do you sell "those" players? You sell them some plastic HH crack and then you sell them "different" (and arguably better) new versions of Space Marines.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
To those who don't believe the new Havoc rules are sales related I ask if you believe it's a coincidence that the new, previously unheard of weapon just happens to be the best from a damage output (and likely, therefore, competitive) standpoint and just happens to be the only singular heavy weapon in the new kit?

What an odd coincidence indeed.

GW might claim otherwise, but they absolutely give products better rules if they want them to sell. Look at the Castellan. Sometimes they miss the mark or, indeed, don't give great rules to a model (because they know it'll sell regardless).

Counterpoint: The Valiant came out the same week as the Castellan and I've yet to see one outside of a box on my FLGS's shelf (though I just got an insane deal for one on Ebay, so that's about to change). Also, if they were writing rules to sell more Castellans, they wouldn't have even bothered nerfing the stratagems for it. GW making stuff OP to move models is blatant tinfoil hattery and doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny:

The Armiger warglaives were utter trash on release, and even with the reduced points costs, are still pretty terrible.
Helverins are solid, but the only reason to take them is to fill an SHD that already has a bigger Knight
The Knight Preceptor/Canis Rex are both narrative-tier units
The aforementioned Knight Valiant is mediocre at best
The Cloaktek is meh and usually a worse choice than the Chronotek
The new Ork vehicles are all pretty bleh
The GSC stuff is a mixed bag, ranging from hilariously bad (ridgerunner) to awesome (jackals, some of the characters) and everywhere in between
Most of the new Shadowspear units are pretty underwhelming with the Suppressors being a complete joke.

I can go on and on, but the pattern is clear. The vast majority of new releases are not being given amazing rules out of the door as some conspiracy to drive sales.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
To those who don't believe the new Havoc rules are sales related I ask if you believe it's a coincidence that the new, previously unheard of weapon just happens to be the best from a damage output (and likely, therefore, competitive) standpoint and just happens to be the only singular heavy weapon in the new kit?

What an odd coincidence indeed.

GW might claim otherwise, but they absolutely give products better rules if they want them to sell. Look at the Castellan. Sometimes they miss the mark or, indeed, don't give great rules to a model (because they know it'll sell regardless).

And let's stack that up with the known points for obliterators. Or that this new weapon isn't even in the csm kit. If it was a sales vehicle why isn't it there, too?

You can't ignore everything else to make a bs point.

RogueApiary wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
To those who don't believe the new Havoc rules are sales related I ask if you believe it's a coincidence that the new, previously unheard of weapon just happens to be the best from a damage output (and likely, therefore, competitive) standpoint and just happens to be the only singular heavy weapon in the new kit?

What an odd coincidence indeed.

GW might claim otherwise, but they absolutely give products better rules if they want them to sell. Look at the Castellan. Sometimes they miss the mark or, indeed, don't give great rules to a model (because they know it'll sell regardless).

Counterpoint: The Valiant came out the same week as the Castellan and I've yet to see one outside of a box on my FLGS's shelf (though I just got an insane deal for one on Ebay, so that's about to change). Also, if they were writing rules to sell more Castellans, they wouldn't have even bothered nerfing the stratagems for it. GW making stuff OP to move models is blatant tinfoil hattery and doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny:

I have seen a fair few Valiants on the table. Lots and lots and lots. I can play anecdotal tennis too! The stratagem nerf did nothing. They have still not changed the points. How many months has it been? Your 'counterpoint' proves my premise that it attempts to dispel. If Castellans do get a nerf, it will be when GW have decided that their sales have plateaued.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
To those who don't believe the new Havoc rules are sales related I ask if you believe it's a coincidence that the new, previously unheard of weapon just happens to be the best from a damage output (and likely, therefore, competitive) standpoint and just happens to be the only singular heavy weapon in the new kit?

What an odd coincidence indeed.

GW might claim otherwise, but they absolutely give products better rules if they want them to sell. Look at the Castellan. Sometimes they miss the mark or, indeed, don't give great rules to a model (because they know it'll sell regardless).

Counterpoint: The Valiant came out the same week as the Castellan and I've yet to see one outside of a box on my FLGS's shelf (though I just got an insane deal for one on Ebay, so that's about to change). Also, if they were writing rules to sell more Castellans, they wouldn't have even bothered nerfing the stratagems for it. GW making stuff OP to move models is blatant tinfoil hattery and doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny:

I have seen a fair few Valiants on the table. Lots and lots and lots. I can play anecdotal tennis too! The stratagem nerf did nothing. They have still not changed the points. How many months has it been? Your 'counterpoint' proves my premise that it attempts to dispel. If Castellans do get a nerf, it will be when GW have decided that their sales have plateaued.

What a fething load of garbage. Show me a valiant list at any tournament. And then give me the ratio of valiants to castellans.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


And let's stack that up with the known points for obliterators. Or that this new weapon isn't even in the csm kit. If it was a sales vehicle why isn't it there, too?

You can't ignore everything else to make a bs point.

Are you being serious? This proves my point entirely. Its not included perhaps to force you to buy more Havoc kits?!

Wake up and stop defending the indefensible.

When Havocs being able to move wins every top table maybe someone will care. Until then they’re a power armoured unit with no ablative wounds. They’ll die to a stiff breeze, no?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


And let's stack that up with the known points for obliterators. Or that this new weapon isn't even in the csm kit. If it was a sales vehicle why isn't it there, too?

You can't ignore everything else to make a bs point.

Are you being serious? This proves my point entirely. Its not included perhaps to force you to buy more Havoc kits?!

Wake up and stop defending the indefensible.

Um the tactical marine kit only comes with a missile launcher(as far as heavy weapons go), but could take all the heavy weapons, which were only available in the devastator box.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


And let's stack that up with the known points for obliterators. Or that this new weapon isn't even in the csm kit. If it was a sales vehicle why isn't it there, too?

You can't ignore everything else to make a bs point.

Are you being serious? This proves my point entirely. Its not included perhaps to force you to buy more Havoc kits?!

Wake up and stop defending the indefensible.

I posted most of the releases from the past year and the only standout so has been the Castellan and some of the GSC units, all of which you promptly ignored so that you could nitpick at my throwaway line about the Valiant. Also, your local meta must be pretty friendly with all those Valiants running around because I've yet to see one in a top 8 list at any major since they were released.

By your logic, Primaris would have been dominating from the start of 8th ed. Of course, you're going to fall back on "well GW expects Primaris to sell so they don't need to bother making decent rules for them." Which is the same style of argument that conspiracy theorists use to handwave opposing arguments. I suppose then that GW expected the Knight Valiant to outsell the Castellan or the Warglaives to outsell the Helverins as well? Did they expect the FOUR new Ork vehicles to just fly off the shelves with such mediocre rules? How about that awesome new Ridgerunner? Guess GW is just expecting those puppies to move at $40 a pop for a unit with terrible firepower and durability? Your argument is garbage as is your silly conspiracy theory that GW deliberately makes rules to move models.

Grav guns were all the rage once upon a time. I have not seen a single one since 8th started.

I wouldnt be surprised to see the reaper chaincannon be well priced to sell a bunch. Then again its just a uber heavy bolter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is a csm in a regular squad still considered to be a havoc?

Why would csm not have mobile havoc marines in regular squads, it just makes sense that they would.

grav guns were great when they could threaten vehicles in an interesting way. Now their special rules were generic'd down to better AP on a str 5 rapid fire base with shorter range?

 Smirrors wrote:
...Why would csm not have mobile havoc marines in regular squads, it just makes sense that they would.

Why can Custodian Guard use adrasite spears but Wardens can't?

Why do Deathwatch characters forget how bikes work when they go off to join the Deathwatch?

Why do Eldar generals have weaker weapon options than random sergeants?

Why can one Grot scratching on the hull prevent a Land Raider from shooting?

Why are Secutarii so totally divorced from the Forge World's chain of command they don't benefit from any special rules?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
...Why would csm not have mobile havoc marines in regular squads, it just makes sense that they would.

Why can Custodian Guard use adrasite spears but Wardens can't?

Why do Deathwatch characters forget how bikes work when they go off to join the Deathwatch?

Why do Eldar generals have weaker weapon options than random sergeants?

Why can one Grot scratching on the hull prevent a Land Raider from shooting?

Why are Secutarii so totally divorced from the Forge World's chain of command they don't benefit from any special rules?

Because 40k doesn't make sense?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why do Eldar generals have weaker weapon options than random sergeants?

 Sir Heckington wrote:
Because 40k doesn't make sense?

Paradoxically, commanders, and even sergeants to some extent, having weaker weapons actually makes sense as they should be commanding/leading not fighting. However, Warhammer 40k follows video game boss logic in that the more important you are the more awesome you are at combat generally.

I'm just going to eat popcorn as I watch everyone come to the realization that this is a game of plastic soldiers and none of this should be causing us all this much stress.

drbored wrote:
I'm just going to eat popcorn as I watch everyone come to the realization that this is a game of plastic soldiers and none of this should be causing us all this much stress.

Pass the bucket.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
When Havocs being able to move wins every top table maybe someone will care. Until then they’re a power armoured unit with no ablative wounds. They’ll die to a stiff breeze, no?

This. Not having any ablative wounds and a unit of Havocs potentially costing 150~ish points for 5 models... yeah it's ok for funsies, but far from amazing and a complete point sink in competitive.

People acting like 5 marines are suddenly unbeatable

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
When Havocs being able to move wins every top table maybe someone will care. Until then they’re a power armoured unit with no ablative wounds. They’ll die to a stiff breeze, no?

This. Not having any ablative wounds and a unit of Havocs potentially costing 150~ish points for 5 models... yeah it's ok for funsies, but far from amazing and a complete point sink in competitive.

People acting like 5 marines are suddenly unbeatable

I'm more irritated by the fact that a tank is less effective as a mobile weapons platform that a group of guys carrying the same guns.

I doubt the new unit will be game breaking, though the rotor cannon is pretty neat.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
When Havocs being able to move wins every top table maybe someone will care. Until then they’re a power armoured unit with no ablative wounds. They’ll die to a stiff breeze, no?

This. Not having any ablative wounds and a unit of Havocs potentially costing 150~ish points for 5 models... yeah it's ok for funsies, but far from amazing and a complete point sink in competitive.

People acting like 5 marines are suddenly unbeatable

Hiding in losblocks and then move out of it and shoot without any penalties? Rhino bunker? T5 and relentless do much more to survivability than couple more t4 wounds (and you must pay for that, 14 pts per each wound) on stationar unut.

Silver144 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
When Havocs being able to move wins every top table maybe someone will care. Until then they’re a power armoured unit with no ablative wounds. They’ll die to a stiff breeze, no?

This. Not having any ablative wounds and a unit of Havocs potentially costing 150~ish points for 5 models... yeah it's ok for funsies, but far from amazing and a complete point sink in competitive.

People acting like 5 marines are suddenly unbeatable

Hiding in losblocks and then move out of it and shoot without any penalties? Rhino bunker? T5 and relentless do much more to survivability than couple more t4 wounds (and you must pay for that, 14 pts per each wound) on stationar unut.

Ok. For one turn - then you pay for it and remove them from the table afterwards.

If someone sets up a unit of Slaneesh Havocs with 4 Chaincannons you can bet your ass they will be target numero uno in target priority.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Silver144 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
When Havocs being able to move wins every top table maybe someone will care. Until then they’re a power armoured unit with no ablative wounds. They’ll die to a stiff breeze, no?

This. Not having any ablative wounds and a unit of Havocs potentially costing 150~ish points for 5 models... yeah it's ok for funsies, but far from amazing and a complete point sink in competitive.

People acting like 5 marines are suddenly unbeatable

Hiding in losblocks and then move out of it and shoot without any penalties? Rhino bunker? T5 and relentless do much more to survivability than couple more t4 wounds (and you must pay for that, 14 pts per each wound) on stationar unut.

Ok. For one turn - then you pay for it and remove them from the table afterwards.

If someone sets up a unit of Slaneesh Havocs with 4 Chaincannons you can bet your ass they will be target numero uno in target priority.

You mean... Like the regular devastators? But those cannot hide in rhino, or behind losblocks and pretty often not be able to shoot a once during tbe game.

RogueApiary wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


And let's stack that up with the known points for obliterators. Or that this new weapon isn't even in the csm kit. If it was a sales vehicle why isn't it there, too?

You can't ignore everything else to make a bs point.

Are you being serious? This proves my point entirely. Its not included perhaps to force you to buy more Havoc kits?!

Wake up and stop defending the indefensible.

I posted most of the releases from the past year and the only standout so has been the Castellan and some of the GSC units, all of which you promptly ignored so that you could nitpick at my throwaway line about the Valiant. Also, your local meta must be pretty friendly with all those Valiants running around because I've yet to see one in a top 8 list at any major since they were released.

By your logic, Primaris would have been dominating from the start of 8th ed. Of course, you're going to fall back on "well GW expects Primaris to sell so they don't need to bother making decent rules for them." Which is the same style of argument that conspiracy theorists use to handwave opposing arguments. I suppose then that GW expected the Knight Valiant to outsell the Castellan or the Warglaives to outsell the Helverins as well? Did they expect the FOUR new Ork vehicles to just fly off the shelves with such mediocre rules? How about that awesome new Ridgerunner? Guess GW is just expecting those puppies to move at $40 a pop for a unit with terrible firepower and durability? Your argument is garbage as is your silly conspiracy theory that GW deliberately makes rules to move models.

I didn't bother responding to the second part of yoje post because it was utter garbage. Your assessment of the units was lacking.

Primaris are a perfect example by the way - they are flat better for the points than standard Marines. Intercessors are better tacticals. Hellblasters are better devs. You realise they could have updated the SM rules to be more like Primaris without releasing an entirely new range right? Money.

The best weapons in the resculpted death guard kits were all new, previously unheard of weapons. Both for the Marines and termies. Then you have units like the PBC that is an utter joke or the stupid tree, or the buffing daemons, or the 'invulnerable to melee while perched on a barrel' bloatdrone.

I'm not going to go into detail on GSC releases, I'll be here all day. Needless to say I completely disagree with your (wrong) sentiment that the new releases are a 'mixed bag'.

Warglaives were in a boxed set that sold well regardless because 'muh new knight models'. Funny how good the later Helverin is in comparison.

Re the Knight Valiant you weren't talking about a tournament setting in your first post where you made your useless, anecdotal comment. You were talking about your meta. I have seen them used. I don't think many local metas have only tournament level players.

A reminder for all to please stay on topic and please be polite.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Hellblasters are better devs.

Except, you know, when they're not. Which is actually quite a lot of the time.
Hit penalties
Wave serpents and other damage reduction units
Any target with an invulnerable save
Hordes
When your opponent has stacks of D2
Probably other situations I can't think of right now

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
To those who don't believe the new Havoc rules are sales related I ask if you believe it's a coincidence that the new, previously unheard of weapon just happens to be the best from a damage output (and likely, therefore, competitive) standpoint and just happens to be the only singular heavy weapon in the new kit?

Most likely yes. If new models consistently had powerful rules you would have a case, but that most definitely is not the case. Or how are you liken your new OP Ork buggies?

I explained this in my post, the part you didn't quote.

They decided that the buggies would sell regardless of their rules (and likely were right).

Generally they give the better rules to resculpts to encourage players that have a ton of the older sculpts to reinvest in the new shiny models. It's more obvious when they give the new sculpts a weapon that just so happens to be incredible or for which there was no previous analogue. Such as the "Dread Bell" or whatever it's called for the GUO or the chaincannon here.

 Galas wrote:
You know by this reasoing you'll always end up being right, no?
If a model comes with great rules "It was a marketing ploy"
If a model comes with bad rules "They knew it would sell nonetheless"


We have proof sometimes the direction gives order to the rules writters to make something OP like 7th Wraitknight, as that old GW rules writer addmited on his reddit AMA. But I don't think most of the time thats what really happens. I can see how in this specific case it could have been something planned. Maybe something like "If we are gonna greenlight doing this old resin kit in plastic then we'll need for it to sell well enough".

Agreed. It's happened before, it's happening now and it'll happen again.

In the biz we call this kind of belief an "unfalsifiable" belief.

You know, like how the new resculpt of CSMs heavily pushes chainswords, and they just HAPPEN to be...completely unusably awful. Wait....

And how the new Tau Fire Warrior sculpt had those Breachers and they just HAPPENED to be...wait, hang on...

And how the new Intercessor box came out with all those new weapon options and they just HAPPENED...to...and the Hellblaster kit, had the assault and heavy versions, and everyone had to....buy them to get...

And the new rubric marines came out and they had warpflamers and soulreaper cannons so everyone had to buy the kit and get the op new...weapons?

Oh, so with resculpts the rules for new weapon options have just about the same random distribution of good/crap that all other releases have?

GW sales conspiracy confirmed?

The new Havoc models are sexy as hell. The rules are awesome. Do the rules make sense? Do Space Elves sense? Does the existence of dark gods by way of human emotions make any real sense? Why do tanks necessarily need to be better, or even equal, at aiming than Havocs? Dark Reapers have been out shooting tanks for years so welcome to yesterday. The suspension of disbelief is enough in 40K to have the Havocs get a pass on that, if you were overly concerned with the logic behind it, lore wise. From a game standpoint, GW is updating the models and are making them somewhat larger, and on larger bases, and probably wanted to add a little more sustenance to their rule set as a result. And it turns out that the rule is actually relevant and useful...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
When Havocs being able to move wins every top table maybe someone will care. Until then they’re a power armoured unit with no ablative wounds. They’ll die to a stiff breeze, no?

Why would they not have any ablative wounds? Current datasheet allows them to be in squads of up to 10.

Overall the unit seems pretty good. The Reaper Chaincannon is an awesome weapon but against a lot of targets it's still worse than a Grav Cannon. Move and Fire is great. I'm wondering if that's going to be given to the loyalists at some point, or if that's considered a balance against the loyalist Signum+Cherub+Stratagems.

He'res hoping Move and Fire is given to Terminators at the same time.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
When Havocs being able to move wins every top table maybe someone will care. Until then they’re a power armoured unit with no ablative wounds. They’ll die to a stiff breeze, no?

Why would they not have any ablative wounds? Current datasheet allows them to be in squads of up to 10.

Overall the unit seems pretty good. The Reaper Chaincannon is an awesome weapon but against a lot of targets it's still worse than a Grav Cannon. Move and Fire is great. I'm wondering if that's going to be given to the loyalists at some point, or if that's considered a balance against the loyalist Signum+Cherub+Stratagems.

He'res hoping Move and Fire is given to Terminators at the same time.

The new datasheet does not allow them to have extra bodies. You get 4 Havocs and a Champ, and they all have weapons beyond your basic bolter.

Even at Max 5 models, I still don't see why everyone is assuming they cannot have ablative wounds.
If you were taking 10 before (5 of which had to have bolters, and likely the Champ too), than why not just split that into 2x 5 with each unit only have 2-3 Heavy weapons?

You're getting the same (or MORE) number of Heavy weapons and can have the same "ratio" of ablative wounds if you want.
3 Heavies to 2 Bolters is a pretty good "sweet-spot" if you are dead set on expendable joes in the unit.

Is it as good as having 4 Heavies in 1 unit surrounded by 5-6 Bolter schmoes? Probably not, but it's not fair to say you cannot have ablative wounds for them at all.

-