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.

 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.