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.

Oedable wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Well, its (apparently) a Librarian only psychic power that can be cast on other units, but yeah...

As for the +1 initiative on the Halberd? I think it could represent the extra reach, but ultimately is just another different piece of wargear...

Aren't all the nemesis force weapons (of all stripes) supposed to channel the psychic power of their weilder? I suppose you could just assume something about the halberd gives the knights a psychically channeled speed boost..

That's a good idea actually, nice thinking!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Platuan4th wrote:

Mantle wrote:I dont know if it has been posted yet but will the dreadknight be having a stat line like a wraithlord or will it have an armor value?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd guss stat line

Considering the 2 posts above yours are specifically about it being a MC, your reading skills are massive fail.

Yes thanks for pointing that out, they weren't there last time I checked the posts

Zefig wrote:But if it was a walker it'd have to be something like AV 10/12/13 Open-topped, and that would be both stupid and terrible. And they couldn't have their shiny new model backed up by terrible rules, could they?

No no no, it'd be AV 10(14)/12(14)/-. The idea would be that the suit made the GK so super psychically charged that he will shoot incoming bullets out of the air, and sword-fan incoming lasers away, and for that reason he'll also be immune to lance rules.

Rear armor is (-) because he will just turn around and swordfan those bullets away, too.

Mantle wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Well, its (apparently) a Librarian only psychic power that can be cast on other units, but yeah...

As for the +1 initiative on the Halberd? I think it could represent the extra reach, but ultimately is just another different piece of wargear...

that sounds more believable, I can see what you mean by the halberd, when I imagine CC I see the guys already locked swords (or whatever other weapon) in which case a big cumbersome halberd might not be as useful as a sword etc.

Reach, greater blocking suface, more ways it can be wielded... A staff is actually one of the most effective weapons against a sword - and a halberd is just a staff with a blade on the end. No need for a psychic speed boost. "Real world" weapon-on-weapon technique explains it just fine.

Balance wrote:Other than being humanoid I don't see much similarity between the Atlas (which looks a lot different from the pre-clickytech version) and the blurry pic of the dreadknight. If anything, the Atlas looks more 'Space Marine' than what we can see of the epic due tot he skull and spike motif.

Really? Cause to me the length of the legs, the shape of the torso and the positioning of the arms is almost spot on.

sourclams wrote:

Zefig wrote:But if it was a walker it'd have to be something like AV 10/12/13 Open-topped, and that would be both stupid and terrible. And they couldn't have their shiny new model backed up by terrible rules, could they?

No no no, it'd be AV 10(14)/12(14)/-. The idea would be that the suit made the GK so super psychically charged that he will shoot incoming bullets out of the air, and sword-fan incoming lasers away, and for that reason he'll also be immune to lance rules.

Rear armor is (-) because he will just turn around and swordfan those bullets away, too.

Or possibly just stop them in mid air with his mind, like neo from the matrix

sourclams wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Balance wrote: I'd think MC should be reserved for things that are 'alive' in some sense,

Considering that a Dreadknight is pretty much a GKT in the Power Loader from Aliens, I'd say that it's pretty "'alive' in some sense".

Yeah but it's probably got 50% more biomass in total than your average Astartes Dreadnought. When the vastest majority of the model is non-sentient mechanical, I think walker status is more appropriate.

But hey, GW wants flying powerloader armor suits for armor suits. Whatevah.

It is odd. I would generally say the difference between a suit being MC and a suit being a Vehicle lies in "what armor protects the driver"... if the suit has armor and it is protecting the driver it should be a vehicle, but if the driver relies only on his own armor than it is merely supplementing his capabilities.

That said people who've said it should be open top etc... forget that the precedent of Landspeeders is that they aren't open topped because of their crew wearing power armor. This really only cloudies the situation.

aka_mythos wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Balance wrote: I'd think MC should be reserved for things that are 'alive' in some sense,

Considering that a Dreadknight is pretty much a GKT in the Power Loader from Aliens, I'd say that it's pretty "'alive' in some sense".

Yeah but it's probably got 50% more biomass in total than your average Astartes Dreadnought. When the vastest majority of the model is non-sentient mechanical, I think walker status is more appropriate.

But hey, GW wants flying powerloader armor suits for armor suits. Whatevah.

It is odd. I would generally say the difference between a suit being MC and a suit being a Vehicle lies in "what armor protects the driver"... if the suit has armor and it is protecting the driver it should be a vehicle, but if the driver relies only on his own armor than it is merely supplementing his capabilities.

Then comes the Penitent Engine and throws all our theories out the window...

Really, I think GW doesn't have a set definition of what should be what, it's all "what feels right" to them.

Platuan4th wrote:
Then comes the Penitent Engine and throws all our theories out the window...

Really, I think GW doesn't have a set definition of what should be what, it's all "what feels right" to them.

Except PEs were released 8 years and 2 editions ago, so probably don't figure into current design theory. That being said, I think the second sentence is probably pretty true and I'm not sure that is a bad thing.

pretre wrote:
Except PEs were released 8 years and 2 editions ago, so probably don't figure into current design theory.

And? Eldar Dreadnou... I mean Wraithlords were vehicles in 2nd Ed. Why did they get the upgrade and not other Dreadnoughts?

Platuan4th wrote:

pretre wrote:
Except PEs were released 8 years and 2 editions ago, so probably don't figure into current design theory.

And? Eldar Dreadnou... I mean Wraithlords were vehicles in 2nd Ed. Why did they get the upgrade and not other Dreadnoughts?

But WL got converted probably about 10 years ago. Again, probably doesn't figure into current design theory.

A more current, and appropriate, question/comparison might be: Why are Soulgrinders vehicles vs MCs?

Platuan4th wrote:

pretre wrote:
Except PEs were released 8 years and 2 editions ago, so probably don't figure into current design theory.

And? Eldar Dreadnou... I mean Wraithlords were vehicles in 2nd Ed. Why did they get the upgrade and not other Dreadnoughts?

Because Eldar were the favorite army of the author. I think that should be the case with all the codices, plus another designer or two to keep that first guy properly leashed.

VoidAngel wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

pretre wrote:
Except PEs were released 8 years and 2 editions ago, so probably don't figure into current design theory.

And? Eldar Dreadnou... I mean Wraithlords were vehicles in 2nd Ed. Why did they get the upgrade and not other Dreadnoughts?

Because Eldar were the favorite army of the author. I think that should be the case with all the codices, plus another designer or two to keep that first guy properly leashed.

Ah, but who wrote the 3rd edition BGB? The change happened there, not the Eldar book.

Personally, they really ought to crowd-source all new rules. Put out pre-codices, and then reap the tidal wave of free playtesting and feedback. They'd just have to specify that you actually have to PLAY test the rules, and not *only* do armchair analysis (which is fine for some things...but getting a few games in with the proposed change is often more informative).

That would be cool, but this is GW we're talking about.

VoidAngel wrote:Personally, they really ought to crowd-source all new rules. Put out pre-codices, and then reap the tidal wave of free playtesting and feedback. They'd just have to specify that you actually have to PLAY test the rules, and not *only* do armchair analysis (which is fine for some things...but getting a few games in with the proposed change is often more informative).

They used to(pre-4th, IIRC). GW used to do a ton of outside source Playtesting before they decided it was bad for "security" and the game.

They've done it before. Officially and un-offically. The only reason I can see it not being standard practice is that it probably creates a lot more work for them (reading all that stuff). Most likely, they figure - "Oh FETH this! WE'RE the game designers, and they're fething well going to buy *whatever* gak we put out anyway!"

Not as good, but easier and faster. Pity.

They decided it was bad because stupid idiots couldnt keep their mouths shut, leaked unfinished versions of the rules and caused a lot of damage with people moaning and whining about the unfinished rules and the effect on their army

That's poor communication. You just print in big red letters at the top: DRAFT! Test rule set! Not carved in stone! Want your feedback so we can fix things if necessary! That's the point! You must be smarter than this line to use these rules!"

VoidAngel wrote:That's poor communication. You just print in big red letters at the top: DRAFT! Test rule set! Not carved in stone! Want your feedback so we can fix things if necessary! That's the point! You must be smarter than this line to use these rules!"

That doesn't do anything.

People are going to whine about rules no matter what, and outside feedback really doesn't help as much as you think it does.

It really would only work if you:
A) Pitted the book against each and every possible permutation of 'power builds' and 'fluff builds'.
B) Did more than one game in that regards.
C) Had an interested and involved playerbase that ranged from the casual gamer who uses a fluffy army to the power gamer who uses a WAAC build no matter what. Mindset does matter in that regard.

Looking at how most 'open betas' for games get feedback(i.e. "It's too hard! Make it easier!" or "This jerk is breaking the game by doing X, why can't I do Y to counter?!", you'd just end up with a codex that varies from stupidly overpowered in some potential builds to woefully underpowered in others.

So basically: what we have now, just without having to have wade through stacks upon stacks of printouts that amount to "Why can't I win more!".

VoidAngel wrote:That's poor communication. You just print in big red letters at the top: DRAFT! Test rule set! Not carved in stone! Want your feedback so we can fix things if necessary! That's the point! You must be smarter than this line to use these rules!"

Stop and think about this 41 page thread and how many posts are 'OMG, GW is the stuuped!', 'Transformers are lame', 'GK are OP', 'I'm selling my army because ISTs/DW Marines/etc aren't included'. Now imagine that every time you try to playtest a codex by 'crowdsourcing'. You'd be unable to try anything new, because as soon as it got out there people would go ape one way or the other. And if you chose not to include that new unit you were trying out? 'Slap in the face!' 'I am betrayed by GW for not including X.' 'I'm selling my armies and moving to Siberia!'

The internets are why we can't have nice things.

That doesn't do anything.

People are going to whine about rules no matter what, and outside feedback really doesn't help as much as you think it does.

It really would only work if you:
A) Pitted the book against each and every possible permutation of 'power builds' and 'fluff builds'.
B) Did more than one game in that regards.
C) Had an interested and involved playerbase that ranged from the casual gamer who uses a fluffy army to the power gamer who uses a WAAC build no matter what. Mindset does matter in that regard.

From a business standpoint in games, balance simply isn't terribly important. It's the illusion of balance, and change that counts (points costs, game patches, army updates, etc). Armies have been imbalanced as long as GW games have existed and people still keep on playing them. When someone finally quits, another two take his place. It's pretty much the same if you look at some popular computer games like World of Warcraft. People complain about class balance but after six years they probably should wake up and realise it's been imbalanced for the whole duration and they've still played with millions of others.

hivefleetmonolith wrote:

Balance wrote:Other than being humanoid I don't see much similarity between the Atlas (which looks a lot different from the pre-clickytech version) and the blurry pic of the dreadknight. If anything, the Atlas looks more 'Space Marine' than what we can see of the epic due tot he skull and spike motif.

Really? Cause to me the length of the legs, the shape of the torso and the positioning of the arms is almost spot on.

That's pretty minor to me, as both are pretty generic humanoid forms. As has been posted, they're also pretty close to a number of Transformer toys, as well as these old things called 'human beings.'

pretre wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
Then comes the Penitent Engine and throws all our theories out the window...
Really, I think GW doesn't have a set definition of what should be what, it's all "what feels right" to them.

Except PEs were released 8 years and 2 editions ago, so probably don't figure into current design theory. That being said, I think the second sentence is probably pretty true and I'm not sure that is a bad thing.

Well the earliest rumors described this as a "Grey Knight Penitent Engine"... I think inevitably the Witch Hunter penitent engine's rules will look alot like the Dreadknights.

True that. WoW is the only game I know of with more whining than 40k. To be fair though, WoW has the capacity to change anything via patch, every week, or even faster if need be. By keeping the game in flux, people are less bummed out when they feel like there is imbalance. 40k updates armies every 6 years or so.

ph34r wrote:True that. WoW is the only game I know of with more whining than 40k...

Whining is the purest form of fandom. It shows you care enough to endure the things that others would just brush off and walk away from a franchise for; whining is the true expression of that sentiment. It shows you care.

Back on the rumors topic, could someone with insider access please post more detailed information on the henchmen squads? It seems like they are the only unit we don't know all the costs for.

sourclams wrote:

1. Fateweaver shot by psycannons is wounded on 2s, and has no better than a 4+ cover save. That drops wounds taken from 1/9 to 1/4. If the Vindicaire really does have an invul-removing special round, Fatebomb just left the meta.

Do Psycannons still ignore Invulsaves? From what I understand, they Don't, but if they do, you should be getting the jump (at least, in terms of ranged fire) on the GKS with Fate Weaver, and something tells me that a giant two-headed bird throwing tons of psy-powers at enimies, and purposely tarpitting itself (IIRC nothing ignores invulsaves in melee) is still a threat to GKs. If you are really worried about a vindicaire, drop near it, and Boon of Mutation it a few times (It shouldn't be too hard to turn to a spawn, and good luck taking a save against a charateristic test!)

sourclams wrote:

2. Mishap within 12" of the casting Librarian or Difficult/Dangerous terrain tests during movement and assault makes getting to GKs a problem. Flamers that can't shoot first turn get pinged by stormbolters.

With the other powers the Libarian can chose from, I don't think this will be an issue (remember, you can only have so many spells!)

sourclams wrote:

3. Storm bolter fire from 10 PAGK reduces a 20 model bloodletter squad to 16. Every model wounded on 4+ at I10 reduces 16 to 10. 20-30 preferred enemy attacks at higher I due to terrain or halberds takes 10 down to 5 or 2, if getting charged or charging. Fearless wounds wipe the rest. Bloodletter still kill between 2-7 PAGKs, but you lost 300 points and I've still got a chunk of my 250 left--a big chunk if it was me charging you.

Again, relying heavily on that Librarian, and for each Librarian they take, thats one less GKGM/Brother-Master/PowerHQ they sacrifice, I don't see GK lists fielding more then 1 librarian, so just keep your bloodletters away from the Harry-Potter marine and you should be good

sourclams wrote:
4. Warding Staves are 2++.

Pity that stave don't work on Boon of Mutation... again, GK definatly have some power-units, they seem to be almost "Space-Wolf Level" Hero-Hammerable... but its nothing a seasoned Daemons player can't handle, and until I see the special rule "Anti-Daemon, at the beginning of the game, roll a D6 for every unit of Daemons in your Opponents Army, on a 4+ that unit is removed from play" I find it hard to swallow that Daemons "suck" against GKs...

sourclams wrote:
I'm not going to try to claim that the sky is falling and daemon players should just sell their armies and quit the game, but GK are definintely not just 'normal marines' that you steamroll in the assault. Psycannons are a huge problem for many of the 'bigger' daemons, and the I10 wound-on-4+ is a huge problem for all of the smaller daemons.

I still feel that GKs will actually work better against DE and Nids then they will Daemons... really the only issues you seem to fear (or at least, the issue you think Daemon players should fear) come from Psychic Abilities, which will be rare if existant, and can be handled by proper list building.... (Remember, the only (honorable) way the GK player can know hes playing daemons is if the daemon player knew he was playing the GKs as well!)

The only real "Daemon-breaking" ability I have seen as of yet is BC-Stern's removal, which to be honest, seems like it will be funnier when used on the Avatar instead of something like Blue-Scribes ((Why the hell are you within 1d6 of stern in the first place?)).

Build Smart, Drop Smart, Play Smart, and you shouldn't have too hard a time bloodcrushing some GKs.

Remember kids! GKs only have like, 2 answers to AV 13 (the soulgrinder!) and that AV 13 just so happens to be toting around a Battle cannon! Did I mention its got a bunch of DDCWs and Fleet?

~DAR

The "Daemon-breaking" ability you should be concerned about is the fact that an unknown amount of weapons (possibly all) in the GK army can be upgraded to take psy bolts, which ignore invuln.

bhsman wrote:

ph34r wrote:The "Daemon-breaking" ability you should be concerned about is the fact that an unknown amount of weapons (possibly all) in the GK army can be upgraded to take psy bolts, which ignore invuln.

I recall reading the rumors that make them rending instead of Ignoring invul, I don't recall seeing any rumors that state that GKs retain their ability to remove invul, the only rumors I've heard of "Daemon-Breaking" special wargear is some sort of power weapon that ignores the IW on a Daemon, and even that is a rumor I have not heard in the past 2 months (its an OOOOOOOLD rumor with 0 confirmation).

Can anyone say in stone weither or not GKs can still ignore invuls (besides the vindicare obviously!)

~DAR