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.

That doesn’t look like a superior

2W Marines and even better in CC now huh? Well I guess all my Daemons stuff goes into the closet for a year or 3.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Use what parts of it?

The name generators.

Dudeface wrote:

Voss wrote:
I'm not following. 'Renegades' are former loyalist marines fighting in real space for essentially a lifetime. They'd have just as many veterans as a loyalist chapter.

Legionnaires are subject to the timey-whimey nonsense of the Eye. When it comes down to it, most don't have 10000 years of battlefield experience. Talons and First Claw of the night lords had 300 (well within the normal life span of loyalists), Bile was... Inactive for indeterminate stretches of time, Ahriman's journey involves powering down to petty sorcerer levels for an extended period, followed by an actual time loop, etc

Either is equally qualified to claim whatever GW means by 'veteran' status.

Look at it through this perspective: Renegades are loyalist chapters who have turned, often still with the same equipment and equivalent experience, so it makes sense for their profiles to match the classic marines. The basic marine will have a tac marine stat line. If tacs have 2 wounds, it makes sense that a basic chaos marine does by extension. No problem so far.

Other option is veterans get +1 wound so classic marine veteran getting 2 wounds and a tac marine having 1. A renegade chaos marine is therefore 1 wound. An Iron warriors legionary who has been around since istvaan may well have 300+ years real time experience - that may be more than a vanguard veteran. The vangaurd veteran gets 2 wounds, but the iron warrior is still a "chaos space marine" so gets a tac marines stats - 1 wound -despite being likely more experienced than the vanguard vet.

I don't really buy the only "veterans get +1 wound". They're wearing the same armor. Being more experienced usually doesn't make you twice as tough.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't really buy the only "veterans get +1 wound". They're wearing the same armor. Being more experienced usually doesn't make you twice as tough.

Then why do Marine characters have more than W1?

 Mr Morden wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Same thing was said a few years ago about Any chance of a new Sisters of Battle army - and yet here we are.

All depends on the models that they have made, what codexes need updates has no relevance to GW.

GW doesn't give NPC factions new codex so soon. It's NPC faction. They get tiny support. And one extra model is hardly need for new codex.

Sisters got a model in PA which was a shock to me.....IF they sold well there may be more. Might not.

Apart from Marines its hard to know what they will make next next.

Still not enough to need new codex.

And you do know term leadtimes right? If they decide to new sisters based on sales of that model it would be coming around this time next year earliest.

 Togusa wrote:


I think indexes aren't likely at all, we know Codexes are coming in October, why would they put out indexes after codexes? I do remember reading that GW has tested all of the the codexes at the same time, therefore it stands to reason all the codexes are written. It also stands to reason that we won't get new ones for specific chapters. It's been said many times that Codexes from PA onward were written to be 9th compatible. We're most likely to see new books for Eldar, DE, Orks, Tau, GSC, Chaos Deamons and Guard before we're likely to see SoB, Chaos Marines and the like.

I'd *really* like to see the quote where they were ALL tested at the same time, because I doubt more than a handful have even had pen put to paper beyond the copy + paste lore.

Danit wrote:
Could get the melee sisters from the trailer :3

Got a 2nd hq choice coming why not a 2nd troop

Uh sister superiors...there wasn't squad on them. Leader for squad yes. Whole squad. You eupect troop choice of solo models?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danit wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Danit wrote:
Could get the melee sisters from the trailer :3p

You mean the basic Sister squad? There's no specifically melee unit in the trailer, they all have bolters.

A bunch of them have chainswords

Yeah. The sister superior. Unit leader. There was no squad of melee sisters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danit wrote:
That doesn’t look like a superior

Same armour, same weapon. What difference it has to superior?

I'd be fine with a sister melee squad. "Sister of Battle assault squad" or something. but yeah I doubt it'll happen.

BrianDavion wrote:
I'd be fine with a sister melee squad.

Maybe they could call them, and hear me out on that, "Celestians"! They would be the veteran Sisters of the Order. And, like, they would use close combat weapons instead of just bolter/special weapons and bolt pistols .

For those interested TTC are releasing more necron themed bases and it sounds like they are also releasing base-sets which likely means a one-purchase set of resin bases for boxed sets like Indomitus (probably ones for the other starter sets and any getting started set for necrons in the future too)


https://community.ttcombat.com/2020/08/12/wip-more-bases/#more-6933

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Same thing was said a few years ago about Any chance of a new Sisters of Battle army - and yet here we are.

All depends on the models that they have made, what codexes need updates has no relevance to GW.

GW doesn't give NPC factions new codex so soon. It's NPC faction. They get tiny support. And one extra model is hardly need for new codex.

Sisters got a model in PA which was a shock to me.....IF they sold well there may be more. Might not.

Apart from Marines its hard to know what they will make next next.

Still not enough to need new codex.

And you do know term leadtimes right? If they decide to new sisters based on sales of that model it would be coming around this time next year earliest.

At this time Sisters sales will naturally not figure into anything released for Sisters for the better part of another year. Regardless of that, I'm not sure why you insist on "need" when it comes to a new codex. First, we get a new edition with a new feature called Crusade that will get pages in every new codex. Plus at least one new unit entry. Material for a new codex is there, therefore there is no reason to rule out that a Sisters codex is coming. Second, Sisters are a fully supported plastic army now. GW will be happy to let you rebuy the same rules over and over, as quickly as they think they can get away with.And with Sisters not being a current codex and Crusade adding something not currently in the codex, they might just think they can get away with it within a year of release of the last one.

Personally I wouldn't mind a new codex if we also get plastic Crusaders and Death Cult Assassins with it. Would be easier to justify a new book so soon if there was a larger model release with it, but like I said, it's not like GW needs that justification.

You may also point to how prominently Sisters were featured in the marketing leading up to 9th ed. It's not the strongest point since they're brand new and GW has an interest in advertising them to get more sales, but it isn't something I'd easily dismiss either.

The existence of Crusade alone makes a new Sisters book early-ish in 9th seem rather likely to me.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Same thing was said a few years ago about Any chance of a new Sisters of Battle army - and yet here we are.

All depends on the models that they have made, what codexes need updates has no relevance to GW.

GW doesn't give NPC factions new codex so soon. It's NPC faction. They get tiny support. And one extra model is hardly need for new codex.

Sisters got a model in PA which was a shock to me.....IF they sold well there may be more. Might not.

Apart from Marines its hard to know what they will make next next.

Still not enough to need new codex.

And you do know term leadtimes right? If they decide to new sisters based on sales of that model it would be coming around this time next year earliest.

The only "need" GW has is to sell new models - if they have made some more Sisters for a new wave there will be a new Codex, if not probably not for some time.

I don't know about a new SIster 'dex already. I think it's more likely we'll start seeing more campaign books ALA Vigilus/Psychic Awakening to serve as a stop-gap to new codexes. It's also a good way to get people buying yearly books for the same price as a 'dex, but without people feeling like they're being taken for a ride (see: Marine player reactions to a new 'dex in less than a year) even though it results in the same thing for GW.

 Marshal Loss wrote:
The existence of Crusade alone makes a new Sisters book early-ish in 9th seem rather likely to me.

And other armies don't need crusade stuff? What makes sisters so special snowflake? When in GW's history has NPC faction got 2 codex in less than a year?

So nabbed off reddit:

https://imgur.com/gallery/dTdr1Pn

Some real questions there, 30" boltguns for classic marines?

Dudeface wrote:

Some real questions there, 30" boltguns for classic marines?

Nothing about Marines would surprise me at this point.

tneva82 wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
The existence of Crusade alone makes a new Sisters book early-ish in 9th seem rather likely to me.

And other armies don't need crusade stuff? What makes sisters so special snowflake?

Other armies aren't a relatively recent release that could simply just be pushed out with the Crusade and updated point stuff.

When in GW's history has NPC faction got 2 codex in less than a year?

tneva82 wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
The existence of Crusade alone makes a new Sisters book early-ish in 9th seem rather likely to me.

And other armies don't need crusade stuff? What makes sisters so special snowflake? When in GW's history has NPC faction got 2 codex in less than a year?

Which factions want 2 codex in under a year?

tneva82 wrote:
What makes sisters so special snowflake?

Nothing. So we have to look at how GW has acted in the past to try to guess how it will act in the future. I think the best word is: erratically. So Sisters getting a codex is possible, though unlikely, lol.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Voss wrote:
I'm not following. 'Renegades' are former loyalist marines fighting in real space for essentially a lifetime. They'd have just as many veterans as a loyalist chapter.

Legionnaires are subject to the timey-whimey nonsense of the Eye. When it comes down to it, most don't have 10000 years of battlefield experience. Talons and First Claw of the night lords had 300 (well within the normal life span of loyalists), Bile was... Inactive for indeterminate stretches of time, Ahriman's journey involves powering down to petty sorcerer levels for an extended period, followed by an actual time loop, etc

Either is equally qualified to claim whatever GW means by 'veteran' status.

Look at it through this perspective: Renegades are loyalist chapters who have turned, often still with the same equipment and equivalent experience, so it makes sense for their profiles to match the classic marines. The basic marine will have a tac marine stat line. If tacs have 2 wounds, it makes sense that a basic chaos marine does by extension. No problem so far.

Other option is veterans get +1 wound so classic marine veteran getting 2 wounds and a tac marine having 1. A renegade chaos marine is therefore 1 wound. An Iron warriors legionary who has been around since istvaan may well have 300+ years real time experience - that may be more than a vanguard veteran. The vangaurd veteran gets 2 wounds, but the iron warrior is still a "chaos space marine" so gets a tac marines stats - 1 wound -despite being likely more experienced than the vanguard vet.

I don't really buy the only "veterans get +1 wound". They're wearing the same armor. Being more experienced usually doesn't make you twice as tough.

I am psyched for my W2 aspect warriors and my W2 scions and my W2 bloodb-

my W2 bloo-

.....

I put them right here I swear.

Where is that datasheet for my bloodbrides? Is it underneath this new datasheet they put out for veteran Intercessors, a unit that doesn't have a kit besides the basic intercessor kit and is basically just going to be a minor stat improvement you represent with a different paintjob?

There's a new unit in the form of the Palatine.

New codex is more likely than not.

Dudeface wrote:
So nabbed off reddit:

https://imgur.com/gallery/dTdr1Pn

Some real questions there, 30" boltguns for classic marines?

Largely flattening out the differences with primaris is a positive, given that their rules had been reflecting a much larger difference than their lore described. (Initially, if you assumed a naked marine and a naked primaris, then 2 wounds and 2 attacks literally doubled the impact one would have. The lack of double the firepower and existence of multi-wounding weapons were the only counter-factors.)

My one caveat is that if tacs are two wound, so should be many traditionally "marine equivalent" units other armies have. Using the other army they're boxed with as an example, they seem to be continuing a trend of devaluing Necron Warriors into zombie hordes so if they're relatively cheap 1 wound models that's one thing, but Immortals should absolutely be two wound if marines are. They used to be T5!

changemod wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
So nabbed off reddit:

https://imgur.com/gallery/dTdr1Pn

Some real questions there, 30" boltguns for classic marines?

Largely flattening out the differences with primaris is a positive, given that their rules had been reflecting a much larger difference than their lore described. (Initially, if you assumed a naked marine and a naked primaris, then 2 wounds and 2 attacks literally doubled the impact one would have. The lack of double the firepower and existence of multi-wounding weapons were the only counter-factors.)

My one caveat is that if tacs are two wound, so should be many traditionally "marine equivalent" units other armies have. Using the other army they're boxed with as an example, they seem to be continuing a trend of devaluing Necron Warriors into zombie hordes so if they're relatively cheap 1 wound models that's one thing, but Immortals should absolutely be two wound if marines are. They used to be T5!

Yeah,so positive it makes fluff into nonsense.
"Hey Guiliman, I spent 10000 years improving Space Marines and their equipment! War is changed forever!"
"Yeah? Tell me the groundbreaking advances!"
"Ermmm... Primaris are huge, but no more tough than before. They also strike a bit faster. And their bigger and better guns are actually the same. But pierce armour a bit better.
Why do you say nothing, Guiliman? Are you overwhelmed?"

Immortals to T5, and Gauss Blasters now 30' Rapidfire.

Heavy weapon for deep strike assasins. Lol. Better get something really good as well. 5 man squads to ds into objectives was only thing good at

tneva82 wrote:
Heavy weapon for deep strike assasins. Lol. Better get something really good as well. 5 man squads to ds into objectives was only thing good at

BS 2+ now
T5
+12" range
+1S
-2Ap

all improvements

tneva82 wrote:
Heavy weapon for deep strike assasins. Lol. Better get something really good as well. 5 man squads to ds into objectives was only thing good at

At BS2 they are firing at their old hit rate anyway if they deepstrike. They also got a T bonus, and the weapon is much better.

They got buffed for sure, I'm curious to see their special rules.

Hmmm true. Though 1 less shot often so firepower still reduced.