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.

Makes me wonder how they'll handle Space Wolves.

"Here is your Codex. You can use the vehicles... well most of them. And... your supplement will have your infantry units! Enjoy!"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Makes me wonder how they'll handle Space Wolves.

"Here is your Codex. You can use the vehicles... well most of them. And... your supplement will have your infantry units! Enjoy!"

that'd be better then my fear "grey hunters are now tac marines in 6 months we'll get around to remembering to FAQ that grey hunters should be able to take 2 special weapons and we'll spend the next handful of editions jerking space wolf players around as to weather or not their grey hunters get chainswords"

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Makes me wonder how they'll handle Space Wolves.

"Here is your Codex. You can use the vehicles... well most of them. And... your supplement will have your infantry units! Enjoy!"

that'd be better then my fear "grey hunters are now tac marines in 6 months we'll get around to remembering to FAQ that grey hunters should be able to take 2 special weapons and we'll spend the next handful of editions jerking space wolf players around as to weather or not their grey hunters get chainswords"

I’m wondering how much from the special chapters will bleed into the main book. What if Tacs could add one special or heavy per 5, and not restrict them to one of each at 10? Dedicated Ultras can follow the old ways, but grey hunters can be played with minimal fuss without the supplement.

 Nevelon wrote:
I’m wondering how much from the special chapters will bleed into the main book. What if Tacs could add one special or heavy per 5, and not restrict them to one of each at 10? Dedicated Ultras can follow the old ways, but grey hunters can be played with minimal fuss without the supplement.

It'd be nice. Certainly make tactical squads a little more, well, tactical!

 Super Ready wrote:
Sternguard certainly had special issue ammo before Deathwatch were created as a faction - they were part of the lore, but only thanks to Brother Artemis being in the Inquisition game system.
But if you want to go even further back? Hellfire rounds were available to the Ultramarines' Tyrannic War Veterans, which existed even before Sternguard were called Sternguard (they existed, but as just "Veteran Tactical Squads", and only had a slightly better profile to boast over the non-veteran version).
For a time Hellfire rounds were also available to heavy bolters, before Deathwatch seemingly snapped them all up along with the other rounds available.

Uh, no. Just no. DW as a 'faction' predates all of these by a pretty big margin:


In fact 5th edition Sternguard was created from DW fluff bit, namely returning veterans being given supply of DW bullets on their way out. Ditto for Artemis, he is only a thing thanks to people's tabletop armies.

He clearly meant as a Codex force unto themselves.

If CM is truly +40pts, makes you wonder how much the named CMs are going to cost now. I'm also fine with reroll all for one unit, should have always been that way.

 bullyboy wrote:
If CM is truly +40pts, makes you wonder how much the named CMs are going to cost now. I'm also fine with reroll all for one unit, should have always been that way.

I guess it shows that they are giving orders to one specific unit.

Still, it's a kind of weak way of backing away from auras.

yukishiro1 wrote:
That thing about a strat for whirlwinds that makes whatever they shoot lose defensive positions and also fight last seems both stupid and strange enough to be just the sort of thing GW would do, because giving space marines a fights last character wasn't enough, gotta also give them the ability to put it on anything literally anywhere on the table with a non-LOS shooting unit!

If someone came up with that as a fake I actually gotta hand it to them, it's perfection.

How dare GW decide that a bombarding artillery unit actual do something a bombarding artillery unit is actually supposed to do

 Nevelon wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Makes me wonder how they'll handle Space Wolves.

"Here is your Codex. You can use the vehicles... well most of them. And... your supplement will have your infantry units! Enjoy!"

that'd be better then my fear "grey hunters are now tac marines in 6 months we'll get around to remembering to FAQ that grey hunters should be able to take 2 special weapons and we'll spend the next handful of editions jerking space wolf players around as to weather or not their grey hunters get chainswords"

I’m wondering how much from the special chapters will bleed into the main book. What if Tacs could add one special or heavy per 5, and not restrict them to one of each at 10? Dedicated Ultras can follow the old ways, but grey hunters can be played with minimal fuss without the supplement.

honestly that's what I'd do. I'd also allow you to equip tac marines with chainswords for 1 PPM. which would allow grey hunters to be a thing, and also proably make Caracadons astra players happy

 alextroy wrote:
How dare GW decide that a bombarding artillery unit actual do something a bombarding artillery unit is actually supposed to do

If only there was mechanic that the game used to have, something that allowed you to pin units, rather than an overly simplistic (yet somehow still more complicated) morale system that just results in removing more models.

I mean, a few codexes back they had black Templar troop choices in the regular marine codex. But they were BT exclusive sorta. Like they had the black Templar keyword rather than (CHAPTER) so it's possible they may do the same with chapter specific units right? But that would cause a lotta pages of near identical units right? But is that better than 6 books with near identical selections?

cody.d. wrote:
I mean, a few codexes back they had black Templar troop choices in the regular marine codex. But they were BT exclusive sorta. Like they had the black Templar keyword rather than (CHAPTER) so it's possible they may do the same with chapter specific units right? But that would cause a lotta pages of near identical units right? But is that better than 6 books with near identical selections?

The Black Templar thing might be an exception as they weren't willing to do them as a full force (which is a shame).

But yeah, this current endeavour with a single core book and supplements for all Marine Chapters* is meant to cut down on the repetition of datasheets that we saw plague the latter half of 8th. Also means that if when we get another wave of Stormhost Eternals Primaris Marines in 6 months, they don't have to update it for Marines, Dark Angels, Blood Angels and so on.

Of course it then does create problems with Chapters that have largely unique structure and don't use regular units (Deathwatch and especially Space Wolves standing out). It also means that we have some supplements that are rich in datasheets (congrats to all Woof players, you have 98 datasheets from your Codex + a further 20 from your supplement!), and others that might be a bit thin on the ground (all the existing less popular first Foundings are a good example).

This is very much a damned if the do/damned if they don't situation. I don't think there's a one-size fits all solution, but I think that the approach their taking might be the lesser evil.

*Except for Grey Knights, which in a way kind of proves how silly it is. They get a special book where Space Wolves, who don't use Tac Squads, Dev Squads, Scout Squads, and so on in their traditional forms, somehow don't.

cody.d. wrote:
I mean, a few codexes back they had black Templar troop choices in the regular marine codex. But they were BT exclusive sorta. Like they had the black Templar keyword rather than (CHAPTER) so it's possible they may do the same with chapter specific units right? But that would cause a lotta pages of near identical units right? But is that better than 6 books with near identical selections?

really blood angels and dark angels don't need much more then a line in their supplement or under their chapter tactics saying "blood angels X squad can take Y"

where it gets complictaed are honestly with the space Wolves where every unit is subtly differant. it's subtle eneugh that I could see wolves just LOSING these options but the differances are IMHO pretty important to the point where if they do space wolves are gonna be unhappy

Yeah you got a fair point there. We've seen it a few times in 8th huh? Chapter books come out, new marines come out a few months later and put everything in this awkward position.

I wonder if they're going to make an oldmarine codex sooner or later and have a primaris codex all to themselves. Which would in theory be fully compatible with the supplements.

cody.d. wrote:
Yeah you got a fair point there. We've seen it a few times in 8th huh? Chapter books come out, new marines come out a few months later and put everything in this awkward position.

I wonder if they're going to make an oldmarine codex sooner or later and have a primaris codex all to themselves. Which would in theory be fully compatible with the supplements.

more to the point we also saw a LOT of little screw ups in the shared units section of the index with space wolves.

 Super Ready wrote:
There is a purpose to the snark. Encouraging people to back up their claims with their sources, which in turn reduces the spread of 'fake news' and the like.
Maybe I could have put it nicer, but I stand by my point. Post your source or by default, I'm not going to believe a word you say.

Of course there's one　issue. Any real leaks by this　point comes from person who isn't supposed to be leaking and by revealing source could land source/whoever let source read codex ahead of time

KurtAngle2 wrote:
- Deathwatch seems to have lost special ammo

This is contradictory to what was said in the codex show. It was confirmed there that SIA ist still around in 9th. Maybe not in the codex, but at least in the ssuupplement.

Sterling191 wrote:
SIA is (presently) a datasheet ability for specific Deathwatch units. There is quite literally zero chance it will be printed in the prime Marine codex, because those units for regular Marines never had SIA.

Sternguard has (had?) SIA.

Pyrosphere wrote:

Sternguard has (had?) SIA.

Had, yeah. It used to have the option for the various rounds, but in 8th (7th maybe?) it just switched to their bolters being "special issue": 30" & -2AP.

I'm actually hoping that those list of changes are true, even if those thunder hammers really make everything suspicious.

Most of the changes are great both for internal and external balance.

The only dumb point are obviously the eradicators at 40 points, but at this point they are likely to be nerfed in the datasheet. Whoever did those spoilers did also miss the nerf on aggressors, so he probably didn't read the datasheets, just skimmed through points and stratagems.

Confirmation tesla are unmodified 6's. Internal balance between gauss and tesla improves but mostly by external nerf. 30" range is nice but not sure is that worth lower damage output.

Immortals looking to be better and better as cheap minsized squads for objectives/actions rather than any resemblance of actual damage output.

Spoletta wrote:
I'm actually hoping that those list of changes are true, even if those thunder hammers really make everything suspicious.

Most of the changes are great both for internal and external balance.

The only dumb point are obviously the eradicators at 40 points, but at this point they are likely to be nerfed in the datasheet. Whoever did those spoilers did also miss the nerf on aggressors, so he probably didn't read the datasheets, just skimmed through points and stratagems.

Aggressor nerf?

 AduroT wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I'm actually hoping that those list of changes are true, even if those thunder hammers really make everything suspicious.

Most of the changes are great both for internal and external balance.

The only dumb point are obviously the eradicators at 40 points, but at this point they are likely to be nerfed in the datasheet. Whoever did those spoilers did also miss the nerf on aggressors, so he probably didn't read the datasheets, just skimmed through points and stratagems.

Aggressor nerf?

We know from one of the playtesters that aggressors are being harshly nerfed, to the point that according to him we will no longer see them on competitive tables.

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Makes me wonder how they'll handle Space Wolves.

"Here is your Codex. You can use the vehicles... well most of them. And... your supplement will have your infantry units! Enjoy!"

that'd be better then my fear "grey hunters are now tac marines in 6 months we'll get around to remembering to FAQ that grey hunters should be able to take 2 special weapons and we'll spend the next handful of editions jerking space wolf players around as to weather or not their grey hunters get chainswords"

What IMO they should do is for this specfic example is

All Tac Marines can take one Heavy or Special per 5
All Marines can take a Chainsword at 1pt per model.

Done. There are plenty of non Wolves in the lore who use chainswords - there is no reason to restirct to one Chapter just to make them seem a bit different.

So you want 10-man Tac squads taking 2 heavy weapons?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So you want 10-man Tac squads taking 2 heavy weapons?

Yes. And while we're at it I'd like the BA melta and flamer options for my Salamanders, too.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So you want 10-man Tac squads taking 2 heavy weapons?

Why not? If you take 2x5 you also have 2 heavies and a free sergeant to boot

Spoletta wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I'm actually hoping that those list of changes are true, even if those thunder hammers really make everything suspicious.

Most of the changes are great both for internal and external balance.

The only dumb point are obviously the eradicators at 40 points, but at this point they are likely to be nerfed in the datasheet. Whoever did those spoilers did also miss the nerf on aggressors, so he probably didn't read the datasheets, just skimmed through points and stratagems.

Aggressor nerf?

We know from one of the playtesters that aggressors are being harshly nerfed, to the point that according to him we will no longer see them on competitive tables.

if centurions aren't core I'd expect agressors wouldn't be eaither.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So you want 10-man Tac squads taking 2 heavy weapons?

Big problem with that is?

BrianDavion wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I'm actually hoping that those list of changes are true, even if those thunder hammers really make everything suspicious.

Most of the changes are great both for internal and external balance.

The only dumb point are obviously the eradicators at 40 points, but at this point they are likely to be nerfed in the datasheet. Whoever did those spoilers did also miss the nerf on aggressors, so he probably didn't read the datasheets, just skimmed through points and stratagems.

Aggressor nerf?

We know from one of the playtesters that aggressors are being harshly nerfed, to the point that according to him we will no longer see them on competitive tables.

if centurions aren't core I'd expect agressors wouldn't be eaither.

Eradicators are CORE to Aggressors will very likely be so as well. Also, the nerf comment could be unreliable. We'll just have to wait and see. (REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE)