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.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that taking a mounted captain allows rough riders to be troops and that it is no just the special char that allows that.

What mounted captain? There ISN'T a mount option for any character except Kamir.

Anyone notice that the Demo charge is AP2 now? If it already was then my reading skills sucked but hot damn, my tiny guards men are gonna kill me some termies! (or themselves )

Anung Un Rama wrote:....Melta cannon???

Yes, it's believed to be the primary weapon for one of the new Hellhound variants.

Hulksmash wrote:Anyone notice that the Demo charge is AP2 now? If it already was then my reading skills sucked but hot damn, my tiny guards men are gonna kill me some termies! (or themselves )

Yes, it's AP 2 now. Many a deep striking termie squad has suffered from these in the hands of my IG.

Hulksmash wrote:Anyone notice that the Demo charge is AP2 now? If it already was then my reading skills sucked but hot damn, my tiny guards men are gonna kill me some termies! (or themselves )

The demo charge has always been AP2. It increased from str 8 to str 10, however.

S10 AP2. What are they throwing around? Demolisher shells???

Edit: the reference sheet says it's only S8....

They're throwing little gift-wrapped packages of anti nob-biker love.

Little bundles of hate that can scatter back into your face or somehow land behind you.

Yay 5th Ed blast rules - slowing down the game, adding unnecessary complication and creating unrealistic situations since 2008!

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yay 5th Ed blast rules - slowing down the game, adding unnecessary complication and creating unrealistic situations since 2008!

BYE

Yes, because fourth edition blast rules were soooooo realistic.

imo, the new blast rules are at least not such a big source of argument. "You call that half of the model?"

I personally prefer the Codex: Cityfight "blast" rules, but the 5th Edition ones are way better than 4th.

I think the damn charges should be just like any other weapon.

Roll to hit, and if you miss.... well you miss.

Nothing like throwing the Charge and haveing it somehow hit behind your guys.

Must be a strong headwind.

I saw some mention of Creed and Kell coming as a pair earlier in the thread, and didn't see anything brought up as a response to it, so I'll add a little info to that now:

At the Design Studio Seminar, Robin Cruddace confirmed that Creed and Kell NO LONGER have to be taken as a pair at all times. You can have an army that has Creed but not Kell, and vice versa, or you could still take both.

That's nice to know for people who "only" want to field a cool standart bearer or a bad-ass general.

Wait...didn't creed have Hellpistoles? Nice

ShumaGorath wrote:Yes, because fourth edition blast rules were soooooo realistic.

They were just as bad. Perhaps I should have said:

5th Ed Blast Marker Rules - A different kind of 'suck'.

Better now?

BYE

Oops, the demolition charge is still str 8, no change. I guess I must have read the demolisher cannon stats.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Vets are Ld7... ok...

Maybe only French veteran squads are Ld7.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hydra is just Heavy 2... which is really dumb... but Range 72.

We only know the weapon, not exactly how it is mounted. The Hydra tank/weapons platform might have two Hydra gun systems, or one twin linked one.

My only concern for these rumours is the prevelance of special characters.

it was alright for some army related special abilities to be special character based because 'counts as' is now fully acceptable and encouraged.

However what is good for marines is not good for guard. Special characters are tougher than usual and have lots of nice skills and/or toys to be taken to unlock access to their unique army list bending rule. It is alright for your alt SM Master to have lots of wargear, but the average IG cavalry company commander, or stormtrooper company commander or (dare I hope) a tank company commander, thus assumning those are now Troops; will not necessarily be a hero dripping with gadgets, and I would dislike having to field same in order to take a quite ordinary formation.

Here's hoping that the Hydra mounts four Hydra Autocannons. That'd be some serious firepower there.

BYE

Karnage wrote:I saw some mention of Creed and Kell coming as a pair earlier in the thread, and didn't see anything brought up as a response to it, so I'll add a little info to that now:

At the Design Studio Seminar, Robin Cruddace confirmed that Creed and Kell NO LONGER have to be taken as a pair at all times. You can have an army that has Creed but not Kell, and vice versa, or you could still take both.

Good, first thing I thought when I saw them was why can't you just take the flag guy.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Yes, because fourth edition blast rules were soooooo realistic.

They were just as bad. Perhaps I should have said:

5th Ed Blast Marker Rules - A different kind of 'suck'.

Better now?

BYE

Your so pessimistic. You need a hug.

Orlanth wrote:My only concern for these rumours is the prevelance of special characters.

This is the new reality of the current 40K Codex design. Rather than sub-dexes or alternate army organisations we have Special Characters. Of course, GW is very good at changing horses multiple times mid-race, so in a few years they'll either have gotten over it (or Jervis will be gone), so they can get back to writing army lists, not WarhammerMachine 40K.

BYE

ShumaGorath wrote:Your so pessimistic. You need a hug.

You're so contrary. You need to agree with someone once in a while, even if its just for kicks.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Your so pessimistic. You need a hug.

You're so contrary. You need to agree with someone once in a while, even if its just for kicks.

BYE

All that anger can't be healthy for you. *hug*

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Orlanth wrote:My only concern for these rumours is the prevelance of special characters.

This is the new reality of the current 40K Codex design. Rather than sub-dexes or alternate army organisations we have Special Characters. Of course, GW is very good at changing horses multiple times mid-race, so in a few years they'll either have gotten over it (or Jervis will be gone), so they can get back to writing army lists, not WarhammerMachine 40K.

BYE

There really isn't a prevalence though. It seems about equivalent to the ork or daemon codexes. Its nothing like the sea of special men in the marine 'dex. There's considerably more than in the previous card codex, but that book was quite anemic in that regard. There were a ton of heroic characters in the fiction and imagery, but very few were really represented in any fashion. It was sort of a grinding point for my IG friend.

Am I the only person not bummed out about special characters? I mean, there are a handful of archtypes, and those archtypes will be built out of whatever rules are provided. Having them instead boiled down to a few locked options isn't as fun, but it's almost the same thing. How many jump pack force commanders with lightning claws and iron halos did we see in 3rd? How many terminator librarians in 4th?

I like sublists, but having any ability to manipulate the list is better than nothing. SCs are a bit of a forced way to do it, but I don't mind it.

I got sick of how every 4th ed Marine army around here was led by the same special character... "Jump Chappy".

They should release a graphic novel, "The Adventures of Jump Chappy". It would sell like hotcakes.


(In other words, 4th ed marine codex had more theoretical HQ diversity, 5th ed Marine codex has more actual diversity).

Also, I like special characters.

Neil wrote:I got sick of how every 4th ed Marine army around here was led by the same special character... "Jump Chappy".

They should release a graphic novel, "The Adventures of Jump Chappy". It would sell like hotcakes.


(In other words, 4th ed marine codex had more theoretical HQ diversity, 5th ed Marine codex has more actual diversity).

Also, I like special characters.

That's a great way to put it: actual diversity compared to theoretical diversity.