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.

Kangodo wrote:

The only thing I don't like is its limited use. Do they expect you to ask your friends: "Are you playing flyers today? Aah nice, then I will take my AA-tank."?
They are a useless if the opponent doesn't have flyers and you end up feeling bad because you spend points on them.
On the other hand: What are 70 points in a friendly match of 1500?

tank shock, ramming, rolling cover... ok, not great, but at least they can do something Maybe it'll have a storm bolter pintle.

Even in Epic, the Hunter could be used as a stopgap anti-tank gun, with its AT4+/AA4+ profile. Kind of lame that it's useless in 40k proper.

I have seen little about the Legion of the Damned, other than that they are in the book, and their weapons ignore cover.

Anyone know if they are still elites? Do they still DS only, or can they maybe roll onto the battlefield in spooky Land Raiders now? Ghoulish Drop Pods, maybe?

Is their weapon loadout the same? Better? Worse? Still 3++? Squad size the same?

Bueller? Anyone?

Well the Hydra has the same problem no? and that always been descibred as a horrifyingly powerful wepaon against enemy infantry and light vehicles.............

Yeah like to more about the Legion as well

 ultimentra wrote:

The new AA tanks are IMO, even more gak than the hydras anyhow, because against an AV12 flyer (like the vendetta for instance) your still glancing on a 5 with strength 7. Those are not good odds. Even with armorbane, the big gun is still only one shot.

Hydras are AV10 on the side, these are AV12 on the side. Makes a big difference against a heldrake
Hydras have 4 BS3 twinlinked shots. This tank has 4 BS4 shots that probably reroll 1s to hit and can split fire. Or it is IF and has armorbane, or it is RG and has stealth, or it is IH and has IWND.

 Exergy wrote:

 ultimentra wrote:

The new AA tanks are IMO, even more gak than the hydras anyhow, because against an AV12 flyer (like the vendetta for instance) your still glancing on a 5 with strength 7. Those are not good odds. Even with armorbane, the big gun is still only one shot.

Hydras are AV10 on the side, these are AV12 on the side. Makes a big difference against a heldrake
Hydras have 4 BS3 twinlinked shots. This tank has 4 BS4 shots that probably reroll 1s to hit and can split fire. Or it is IF and has armorbane, or it is RG and has stealth, or it is IH and has IWND.

True enough, its survivability and accuracy are much better compared to the Hydra, its the firepower which I worry about when it comes to firing at AV12.

 VoidAngel wrote:
I have seen little about the Legion of the Damned, other than that they are in the book, and their weapons ignore cover.

Anyone know if they are still elites? Do they still DS only, or can they maybe roll onto the battlefield in spooky Land Raiders now? Ghoulish Drop Pods, maybe?

Is their weapon loadout the same? Better? Worse? Still 3++? Squad size the same?

Bueller? Anyone?

Reportedly the only changes are all their weapons Ignore Cover and they're 25 points each. That's all I've seen thus far.

Kangodo wrote:

1. Having a better transport does make a difference, I will address this in the conclusion.

You can take 3 Rhinos at the cost of 1 Nightscythe. I'll just leave this here. Oh, you can also take a Ghost Bark for 115 pts. Now that's a steal!

3. Necron Warriors aren't supposed to be flexible, they are just good at everything.

I'm not even bothering going further in your post. You seem to be new to the game or do not have much experience with / against Necrons. Saying that Necron Warriors are good at everything is just a wrong statement - and I'll leave it at that without further regard.

 ductvader wrote:


The Marines are generic.
The Marines are generic.
The Marines are generic.
The Marines are generic.

As already pointed out, this is no argument for / against it - being generic is no excuse for poor costing. And if TAC are generic, what are Necron Warriors then? They cannot even choose an option. That's the epitome of generic.

 Pyriel- wrote:

It gets even better when he conveniently "forgets" to mention other comparisons like a SM captain vs a necron lord point-wargear-statline wise or the flying croissant circus of death or the best transports in the game etc etc.
Sure, just take tacs out of the dough and whine, that´ll show´em.

Last time I checked, there was a difference between a SM captain and a SM sergeant. Might want to double-check that in your codex. Best transport in the game is the Vendetta due to it being ridiculously undercosted, Nightscythe is a close second due to its high mobility.

You're not the only one raising the "Q_Q tac have been so bad in the past, it's just fair they're undercosted now!" argument, but it's a truly terrible one. By that logic, SoB will be massively overpowered and able to table every opponent by turn 1. I'd like to see that.

The Vendetta isn't a dedicated transport and is worse as a transport than the Nightscythe.

Would it be reasonable, at some point I mean, to go back to discussing rumors instead of trying to compare codexes to each other?

I mean, I get that these are apparently very interesting discussions, but what the IG, BA, DA, CSM and Necrons have in their codexes has very little, if any, bearing on what the C:SM are getting, now do they?

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 ultimentra wrote:
Actually most IG player do not consider the Hydra to be a good choice unless you know 100% that the enemy will spam tons of flyers or *weak* skimmers. Most IG players consider the Vendetta and HellHound to be much better all-rounder choices for an IG army.

And as long as allied IG can take them in squadrons so do Marines =P.

The Vendetta was the worst thing to happen to the IG codex in the entire history of the army. An idiotically low-costed, hyper-efficient tank destroyer they didn't even make a model for, spammable in squadrons and utterly obsoleting dedicated gunships written into the game already? Thanks a lot, Cruddace. I'd rather crush my own fingers with a jackhammer than run Vendettas.

And when the bokk was written they knew that there were going to be rules for flyers, right? Did anyone run a lot of vendettas when they were just skimmers?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 ultimentra wrote:
Actually most IG player do not consider the Hydra to be a good choice unless you know 100% that the enemy will spam tons of flyers or *weak* skimmers. Most IG players consider the Vendetta and HellHound to be much better all-rounder choices for an IG army.

And as long as allied IG can take them in squadrons so do Marines =P.

The Vendetta was the worst thing to happen to the IG codex in the entire history of the army. An idiotically low-costed, hyper-efficient tank destroyer they didn't even make a model for, spammable in squadrons and utterly obsoleting dedicated gunships written into the game already? Thanks a lot, Cruddace. I'd rather crush my own fingers with a jackhammer than run Vendettas.

And when the bokk was written they knew that there were going to be rules for flyers, right? Did anyone run a lot of vendettas when they were just skimmers?

...yes? It was one of the best units in the Codex BEFORE it got turned into a flyer.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 ultimentra wrote:
Actually most IG player do not consider the Hydra to be a good choice unless you know 100% that the enemy will spam tons of flyers or *weak* skimmers. Most IG players consider the Vendetta and HellHound to be much better all-rounder choices for an IG army.

And as long as allied IG can take them in squadrons so do Marines =P.

The Vendetta was the worst thing to happen to the IG codex in the entire history of the army. An idiotically low-costed, hyper-efficient tank destroyer they didn't even make a model for, spammable in squadrons and utterly obsoleting dedicated gunships written into the game already? Thanks a lot, Cruddace. I'd rather crush my own fingers with a jackhammer than run Vendettas.

And when the bokk was written they knew that there were going to be rules for flyers, right? Did anyone run a lot of vendettas when they were just skimmers?

yes they did. In 5th they were great value lascannons that were needed to crack armor.

DA tacs are the same cost as the proposed C:SM tacs and they they balance out fine against the warriors. Now they don't have the option to TL their guns without a little help from a libby, but then again they also can get a serious boost from the dakka banner.

Comparing everything in a vacuum, tac squads are far and away better than warriors at everything except glancing a vehicle to death at range. Taking everything in context though, and seeing how they function with the army as a whole, if the rumors play out as I'm thinking, it should be a pretty decent match up. The devil is always in the details though.

ClockworkZion wrote:
Would it be reasonable, at some point I mean, to go back to discussing rumors instead of trying to compare codexes to each other?

I mean, I get that these are apparently very interesting discussions, but what the IG, BA, DA, CSM and Necrons have in their codexes has very little, if any, bearing on what the C:SM are getting, now do they?

as much as I and most CSM players are jealous, angry or moments away from becoming renegade Codex Astartes players yes we should respond to the rumors, not just complain about how OP many of them are.

yeah, vendettas were definitely run en-masse before they were fliers. Personally I liked them even more that way, you could use their lascannons on the all-important first turn alpha strike.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
DA tacs are the same cost as the proposed C:SM tacs and they they balance out fine against the warriors. Now they don't have the option to TL their guns without a little help from a libby, but then again they also can get a serious boost from the dakka banner.

I think you are getting some overflow from the DA change. CSM being 13 points. DA tacticals getting ATSKNF and Stubborn for 1 point was a bit much to take but of course CT stubborn is pretty awful.
Everyone knew that C:SM tacticals were going to be 14 points as well. We just didnt expect that they would get twinlinked weapons, 6+ FNP, or stealth as their CT.

ClockworkZion wrote:
Would it be reasonable, at some point I mean, to go back to discussing rumors instead of trying to compare codexes to each other?
I mean, I get that these are apparently very interesting discussions, but what the IG, BA, DA, CSM and Necrons have in their codexes has very little, if any, bearing on what the C:SM are getting, now do they?

People are talking about the strength of these new units and of the changed units.
So comparing them with other codices is only natural, it should be expected.
Or do you want us to go back to the 20 pages of "centurions are ugly" and people asking 25 times what Grav-weapons do?

 Sigvatr wrote:
I'm not even bothering going further in your post. You seem to be new to the game or do not have much experience with / against Necrons. Saying that Necron Warriors are good at everything is just a wrong statement - and I'll leave it at that without further regard.

I have actually played this game for quite a while.
And I have over 8000 points in Necrons and another 4k in Space Marines.
That is why your statement is so laughable!

Tactical Marines were way to expensive and I would try to avoid them as much as possible. So they needed a reduce in cost.

 xole wrote:
If people start taking tactical marines again, I have a reason to take LRBTs again. It will be a good day.

That is actually the thing that excites me the most: So many people are playing Space Marines that this new codex might change the meta a lot.
Almost everyone can do a "counts-as" army, so we'll have new tactics and rules all over the place.

If people start taking tactical marines again, I will have a reason to take LRBTs again. It will be a good day.

Saythings wrote:
Any word on how cheap the BT dedicated transport-LRC is?
Rumors had it they would be slightly cheaper for BT-DT :'D
I could finally run 3 LRC in my 2k again!

Based on the WD battle report they're 260 points with a multi-melta. So that'd be 5 points less than currently.

Kangodo wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
Would it be reasonable, at some point I mean, to go back to discussing rumors instead of trying to compare codexes to each other?
I mean, I get that these are apparently very interesting discussions, but what the IG, BA, DA, CSM and Necrons have in their codexes has very little, if any, bearing on what the C:SM are getting, now do they?

People are talking about the strength of these new units and of the changed units.
So comparing them with other codices is only natural, it should be expected.
Or do you want us to go back to the 20 pages of "centurions are ugly" and people asking 25 times what Grav-weapons do?

It'd be better than the crying that X is so much better than Y for another 30 pages....again.

There is a lot of information but it seems to keep boiling back down to "That unit is so much better than this unit in my army! That's so unfair!". It's almost as if people can't see past the initial shock of what the codex is bringing and that 5th Edition books are designed around a different design philosophy than 6th.

 Exergy wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
DA tacs are the same cost as the proposed C:SM tacs and they they balance out fine against the warriors. Now they don't have the option to TL their guns without a little help from a libby, but then again they also can get a serious boost from the dakka banner.

I think you are getting some overflow from the DA change. CSM being 13 points. DA tacticals getting ATSKNF and Stubborn for 1 point was a bit much to take but of course CT stubborn is pretty awful.
Everyone knew that C:SM tacticals were going to be 14 points as well. We just didnt expect that they would get twinlinked weapons, 6+ FNP, or stealth as their CT.

I hear you, but there are ways to give DA tacticals those things (and actually much better versions of all three at once) and they are far from unbalanced. You don't hear anyone making outrage posts over how broken or undercosted the DA tacs are. I know it's not a direct comparison, but in practical application, I think that what people will find is that the new CT will be far from over powered, and will be a needed boost.

As far as CSM are concerned, they got screwed plain and simple. One horribly broken unit to compensate for a codex that is 90% "meh" does not make for a good codex.

 tvih wrote:

Saythings wrote:
Any word on how cheap the BT dedicated transport-LRC is?
Rumors had it they would be slightly cheaper for BT-DT :'D
I could finally run 3 LRC in my 2k again!

Based on the WD battle report they're 260 points with a multi-melta. So that'd be 5 points less than currently.

Extra Armour was "free" for BT's. They probably took that off seeing how BTs are in the same codex as vanilla 'rines. I think it's safe to say there is no discount. Thanks for the citation though!

ClockworkZion wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
Would it be reasonable, at some point I mean, to go back to discussing rumors instead of trying to compare codexes to each other?
I mean, I get that these are apparently very interesting discussions, but what the IG, BA, DA, CSM and Necrons have in their codexes has very little, if any, bearing on what the C:SM are getting, now do they?

People are talking about the strength of these new units and of the changed units.
So comparing them with other codices is only natural, it should be expected.
Or do you want us to go back to the 20 pages of "centurions are ugly" and people asking 25 times what Grav-weapons do?

It'd be better than the crying that X is so much better than Y for another 30 pages....again.

There is a lot of information but it seems to keep boiling back down to "That unit is so much better than this unit in my army! That's so unfair!". It's almost as if people can't see past the initial shock of what the codex is bringing and that 5th Edition books are designed around a different design philosophy than 6th.

Welcome to 40k rumor posts.

ClockworkZion wrote:
It's almost as if people can't see past the initial shock of what the codex is bringing and that 5th Edition books are designed around a different design philosophy than 6th.

They can't.. (and they shoun'dt nessesarily) because the books still work in the newest edition, so they will compare what they have with what's comming... been like that since second edition to 3rd... not going to stop anytime soon.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
Would it be reasonable, at some point I mean, to go back to discussing rumors instead of trying to compare codexes to each other?
I mean, I get that these are apparently very interesting discussions, but what the IG, BA, DA, CSM and Necrons have in their codexes has very little, if any, bearing on what the C:SM are getting, now do they?

People are talking about the strength of these new units and of the changed units.
So comparing them with other codices is only natural, it should be expected.
Or do you want us to go back to the 20 pages of "centurions are ugly" and people asking 25 times what Grav-weapons do?

It'd be better than the crying that X is so much better than Y for another 30 pages....again.

There is a lot of information but it seems to keep boiling back down to "That unit is so much better than this unit in my army! That's so unfair!". It's almost as if people can't see past the initial shock of what the codex is bringing and that 5th Edition books are designed around a different design philosophy than 6th.

Welcome to 40k rumor posts.

Oh I've been here a while. Doesn't mean I can't go "REALLY"? every once in a while.

 Pyriel- wrote:
So its a codex with mediocre units but a few rules that make the mediocre bread and butter models better (rerolling) vs a codex with worse bread and butter units but that has very OP things everybody takes like nurgle oblits, helldrakes, etc?

Dunno which one I would choose.

 Pyriel- wrote:
implying C:SM did not have and won't now have equally OP options

HAH


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Guess Tau and SM are the only ones who are so internally divergent they can ally with themselves.

Yeah, definitely so compared to the relatively homogenous and uniform Imperial Guard and traitor legions

Saythings wrote:
Extra Armour was "free" for BT's. They probably took that off seeing how BTs are in the same codex as vanilla 'rines. I think it's safe to say there is no discount. Thanks for the citation though!

Well, "free" as in baked-in, yeah - after all BT only pay those 5 points for Extra Armor currently on other vehicles. So if you want extra armor in the new Codex you'll end up at 270 points (based on the 10-point extra armor upgrade cost in the DA codex). So incidentally the whole thing is exactly the same cost as for DA. Meh!

Do we have any rumors about what the 6 relics do? The relic Storm Shield sounds intriguing; what's better than a 3++? Part of me hopes it's Eternal Warrior so that the legacy of the Adamantine Mantle Marshal can live on. That could also explain why they felt they had to change Lysander a bit.

Disclaimer: The above is purely my own speculation, which ought to be obvious. If you repost this as a "rumour you heard", angry gremlins will devour you in your sleep.

Good news, apparently, this new codex will ahve averything i wanted to do with my Mantic stuff... Long Live for the Demiurgs!!! (with codex marines)