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.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Whilst I'm not the worlds greatest fan of "endless colours of space marines". I do feel that removing an army like that in that way would be the wrong move for fans. The time to do that was if they had just one or two models only to their name; but they've been a while standing army for a good while now. It's not like they are one or two models that can roll back into a main arm codex (like how Harliquins rolled back into Craftworld).

It happened to the Deathwatch.

A move that was so unpopular it forced GW to quickly release a free pdf of army rules for them.

There are a number of armies that I don’t think should have been fleshed out to full ones. The problem is now that they have, and there is a player base attached to them, how to deal with it? Will we see GK get the same treatment as DE? Slowly loose units and get phoned in rules? Or SoB? Ignored until a massive refresh?
--
I’m glad GW moved away from “every bit has rules” 3x types of guns/units based on what kind of scope/mag you used. Marines are bloated enough without that level of detail. Save it for KT. We do not need pages upon pages of different flavors of bolters.

I'm half and half on weapons having different profiles.

On the one hand I think if a model has a different weapon in the box then that weapon should have a different profile. I'm also open with things like special weapons being limited in squads.

What we have right now with no limits and - esp in AoS - no variation - just feels bland. A spear and sword should be different and do different things.
A unit of termagaunts should have one or two special weapons chosen for a role not just all of them because there's no reason not to take them.

I do get why its happened to some units. Eg Tyranids went from having two or three jack-of-all trade units to having a LOT more unit types and eventually you do hit the issue of new models and old ones fighting for the same role in the army. So I can get why Warriors went from lots of close combat roles and types to just one flat profile if it leaves room for ravenors and other units to fill that close combat specialist slot that one or two other weapon choices on the warrior used to fill.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Marines will get at least:
- New Interecessors (same loadout as before)

Which means, they keep / return the currently unsupported Stalker/Auto Bolt/Bolt Rifle variants?

Might be the least plausible thing about this, IMO. If they refresh Intercessors, surely they'd get rid of all the options currently on them that are effectively "legends" as rules-support goes?

well no, thats not what this meant. "Same loadout as before" in this context means that they will still be interecessors, ie. all boters, and not a modern version of a tac squad with access to special/hvy weapons like some people have been wishlisting.

For full context, watch Valrak's video. I'm just referencing (poorly) what was said. There was also talks of Mega Armoured boss for the Orks. I listed the stuff he claimed he was pretty sure was coming, there's going to be more than just what was listed..