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.

 BrookM wrote:
Could've done without the codpiece.

It should have been a skull codpiece!

Whilst I agree that lack of variety and options is the biggest problem with the Primaris,the one-part bodies is not part of that. And I say this as a person who loves converting and customising models. Between Hellblaster and Intercessor kits you already have ten different base bodies. Making them one piece allows better details on the waist and stomach area, and those base bodies pretty much have the poses you would reasonably use already covered. And if you really need some tweaking for a very specific pose, knives exist. Primaris kits allow you to produce way better poses than more multipart tactical kits ever did.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
So where are these rumours saying Abaddon was in this game? Were they on Spikey Bits?

Yeah, that's just a bizarre rumour, why would he be in a small scale adventuring game?

Oh please, no more Nurgle, I'm sick of Nurgle!

If it is a guardian of the Blackstone Fortress, then it is probably Old One tech... Interesting.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Allegedly.

Ultimately, it’s never really been made clear.

The Eldar refer to them as Talismans of Vaul. Clearly in reference to the Crippled God.

But. That’s just part of their mythic cycle. So I’m not massively comfortable saying that’s definitely the truth. Especially after The Fall. Consider how The Imperium misrecalls elements of The Dark Age Of Technology.

So I think it’s safe to say the ancient Eldar at least knew of them. And may well have been able to exploit them as a resource in ages past. Yet none of that suggest they actually built them.

Myths can be based on long forgotten truths. Vaul for example, could have been the name of a physical being who either ascended or as the stories changed with each successive retelling over time became remembered as an Aeldari god.

That really doesn't fit the origin story of Eldar gods though.

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, I'm sorry but Primaris have spoiled me, the poses of those chaos marines, even if the detail is more than fine, are underwhelming to say the least.

I was expecting something more similar to Dark Vengeance Chosen or DeathGuard marines, not... "Normal Chaos Marines but with a little more detail".
Of course, if the new multipart plastic box is like that I assume it will make many people happy. Just a new version of the same box (Like the tactical change or the new Tau firewarrior box) instead of a primarization of normal chaos marines.

Yep. the chaos marines are definitely the weakest part of the set.

 bullyboy wrote:


Agreed, that Ranger is spectacular. It's amazing how different people's aesthetics can be.

Yeah, she's totally awesome. I really hope she gets some solid 40K rules.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Personally, I can’t get over the appalling trigger discipline, myself. Just, no, over-inflated space-elf, you only put your finger on the trigger when you are ready to kill the target.
What did that poor ceiling ever do to you?

That is only an issue if the said trigger finger is controlled by a primitive and instinct driven monkey brain.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Also continuing with useless and nonsensical rules just to match the model count in the box. 4 cultists or 7 traitor guard, yaaay!

So you’d prefer units of 10 for both. That you can’t Field from a single box?

Oh no. You’d just complain about that very thing instead.

I'd prefer if they would not have fixed unit sizes.

 lord_blackfang wrote:


If GW wanted cross compatibility, they could also put a sensible number of minis in the box. They could also leave out stupid entries like a unit of 2 CSM. What the hell does that serve? They can already be fielded as normal CSM.

Having less than normal unit size is just a plus though. If you want to use just these two blokes, you can. And as you said, if you want to build a full squad out of these minis, you can already do that too.

It's a bit weird that you can have unit of two marines... or unit of five or more. An unit of three or four marines is completely out of question!

But I only wished the things specific to this box like the beastmen, negavolts etc. had more variable unit sizes, so that you could more freely combine models from different boxes. Oh, and a horrible though occurred to me, these all units are probably unique like the Rogue Trader stuff, so you actually can't ever have more than one box's worth, even in separate units!

There will probably be expansions. Didn't they ad bunch of AOS characters as playable heroes in the Silver Tower?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

ecurtz wrote:
I know everything must be 40k compatible because that's the money maker, but it's pretty annoying to have them shoehorned in to 40k with absurd unit sizes rather than given Kill Team rules where they'd fit perfectly...

Oh stop.

It’s a bonus. Another way to use the models you’ve just bought, outside their main game.

You cannot legitimately criticise nice little bonuses like that.

Well, I think that lack of Killteam rules is a completely valid complaint, these would be perfect for it. I hope they release such rules as a PDF or something.

 xttz wrote:
Most of these models can be run in Killteam using rules from a existing unit like Guardsmen of Chaos Cultists. Not sure why you need new rules that do something very slightly differently.

Most, but not all. Obviously there is no reason to duplicate rules for units that already have them, but not all of these do.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Thank god, i hate the unhelmeted ones.

Then I have some bad new for you about the Chaos Lord...

Thank you!

Now please tell us what they actually say...

If I understand correctly, Janus Draik is basically identical to Elucia Vhane. What exactly does his reroll ability affect?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've been watching the how to play video. It seems actually quite complicated. A lot of thought has gone into these mechanics, this is not some hastily put together ruleset. Also Becca Scott is fun.

 TheGuest wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
If I understand correctly, Janus Draik is basically identical to Elucia Vhane. What exactly does his reroll ability affect?

His hit rolls of 1 on his attacks.

Oh, only his own? Vhane's similar ability affects her friends as well. Otherwise they seem identical.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Regardless of the fluff implications of the robot being an actual Man of Iron, it isn't really something that makes sense as a Man of Iron to me . The Dark Age of Technology was the height of scientific advancement for humanity, the current level of technology supposedly pales in comparison to what things were like back then. It really looks like something that's just an Imperial Robot, it fits in with the current styling and design approach of the 40k Imperium too much for something that's supposedly from the most advanced age of humanity. Obviously it's trying to pose as an Imperial Robot, but that lore says the robot itself is from back then. It's still a big, clunky, crude, somewhat primitive looking robot - that really isn't what they should be based on the little information we have, is it?

I think DAOT tech has gotten overhyped. It was mostly the same than current Imperial tech, they just understood how it worked and could easily replicate even things than in 40K are super rare.

OK, now looking at the English version of Draik's datasheet. he is actually slightly different than Vhane. poison pistol, worse buff, different grenade.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hmm. It seems that the 40K rules are a bit of a mess. There are three sniper characters who have really pathetic sniper weapons. They should have given their guns more punch otherwise there is no reason to include them over normal sniper guys of their faction.

Also, Keywords are really, really restrictive. You cannot really use many of these outside auxiliary. You can pack chaos guys in a patrol with Mallex, but then that's quite a bit of points used on units that will generate zero CP.

Now I didn't expect meta shattering awesomeness, but I kinda hoped that they would not be Grey Knight terrible...




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spikeybits has all the datasheets in case it wasn't posted.

https://spikeybits.com/2018/11/40ks-finally-black-fortress-datasheets-revealed-latest.html

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:


Now I didn't expect meta shattering awesomeness, but I kinda hoped that they would not be Grey Knight terrible...

They're basic rules to let people put them on the table and play. When there is time we'll likely see them all swept up into a bigger codex with proper codex treatment.

The "Servants of the Abyss" is probably the new faction for whenever they get their treatment.

Thing is, they're effectively unusable now. If that stupid 'Battlebrothers' rule wouldn't exist, then at least they would have some use, but alas...

Well, the real problem is the 'battlebrothers' rule. These would work fine without it. It is pointless and stupid rule that only achieves squishing fluffy nonsense builds that were never a problem in the first place.

Well, I think it is certainly telling that her performance, looks and credentials are scrutinised in way male presenters' never are...

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Well, I think it is certainly telling that her performance, looks and credentials are scrutinised in way male presenters' never are...

bs. You think if Wil Wheaton did the video, he wouldn't get just as much (or more) criticism? Geeks tend to be extremely critical towards those they see as fake Geeks. This has always been the case. Has nothing to do with gender. Fake enthusiasm just grates on the nerves. It seems like the Warhammer TV crew is having fun while Becca Scott seems to be screaming internally.

Men are almost never accused of being 'fake geeks' whilst women with extensive nerd credentials often are. There is absolutely no question that Becca is an board game expert. Why was no one questioning whether Duncan was hired only for his good looks, whether his enthusiasm for Imperial Knights was annoying overacting or whether Peachy even knows how to play 40K? The whole 'fake geek' thing is just hostile gatekeeping, and often based on misogyny.

 lord_blackfang wrote:


Some of us aren't thirsty for boobies at all costs and would rather have a skillful and genuine presenter. Which could totally have been a woman if she had any talent other than looks.

Becca Scott does not. Her forced enthusiasm is just cringy to watch. She thrives in this industry because of her gender, she was picked for the video because of her gender. GW made this about gender, not the people complaining about her.

No, it is pretty clear that it is people like you who make this about the gender. This is typical twisted misogynist logic, if woman is successful, it is only because of looks.

deano2099 wrote:

Though far more annoying than any of that is the director, seemingly the same one who does the Warhammer Conquest videos, who seems to go “hey, perform into this camera, then we will film you from a different one from the side.” I know it’s to break up the to camera bits but it’s horribly artificial and annoying.

Yes, that is really jarring!

 warboss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm thinking the chaos lord will make a suitable Abaddon stand-in until the real deal arrives.

A guy in power armor with a thunder hammer and a plasma pistol is a good stand in for a terminator with demonsword, lightning claw, and combibolter? That's an apples to basketball comparison there IMO but if it works for you and your group then so be it.

But they both have a top knot!

If they want add marines, a Deatwatch marine would make most sense. I don't think the power is a problem, as the robot is clearly more powerful than a single marine.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Really? You think a Tactical Marinelet is stronger than a Man of Iron?

Yeah, the power is no issue.


Also, I I really don't understand all the people here opposing GW releasing rules for marines and other existing plastic characters. You don't have to use them, but some people might want to. Sure, I want them to make new models for this game too, but that doesn't preclude giving rules to already existing models too. More choice there is the better.

 Arbitrator wrote:
Not everything has to involve Marines.

So who exactly is forcing you to use these additional Space Marine adventurers were rules for such to be released?

Personally I want an Inquisitor and a Deathwatch marine.