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.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
In regards to the "Are melta weapons fire-based?" question: that might have come up because the C'Tan's anti-melta power refers to fire-based weapons and includes melta.

And it came up because the exact words were flame weapons as detailed in the weapon section of the BRB, which has melta under that heading. So unless 40k Radio paraphrased badly, melta will be included and for some reason they just think otherwise.

Where does this assumption keep coming from? Go look in the 6th edition BRB, Flame and Melta are two completely different sections on the weapon type listing. It's around page 66 or so.

page 56 and 57... flamer and melta are not even on the same page, clearly different weapon profiles.

 Sigvatr wrote:
In regards to the "Are melta weapons fire-based?" question: that might have come up because the C'Tan's anti-melta power refers to fire-based weapons and includes melta.

Not true.
The C'tan power specifies it as 'fire-based weapons AND melta-weapons', which shows us that they are two different categories.

Otacon wrote:
Where does this assumption keep coming from? Go look in the 6th edition BRB, Flame and Melta are two completely different sections on the weapon type listing. It's around page 66 or so.

This!

It is possible that in Translated versions it is different though, so it would be great if we could get verification as the English Version there is no confusion between "Flame" and "Melta' weapons in the descriptors.

Kangodo wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
In regards to the "Are melta weapons fire-based?" question: that might have come up because the C'Tan's anti-melta power refers to fire-based weapons and includes melta.

Not true.
The C'tan power specifies it as 'fire-based weapons AND melta-weapons', which shows us that they are two different categories.

Badly phrased on my part. I was merely given an explanation for why some people might be confused.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
In regards to the "Are melta weapons fire-based?" question: that might have come up because the C'Tan's anti-melta power refers to fire-based weapons and includes melta.

And it came up because the exact words were flame weapons as detailed in the weapon section of the BRB, which has melta under that heading. So unless 40k Radio paraphrased badly, melta will be included and for some reason they just think otherwise.

Melta weapons has a seperate heading from Flamer weapons in my book (page 56/57).

 Redemption wrote:
That was my impression as well. So it either hits the target, or increases the pressure by adding a new missile on its tail that could hit in upcoming rounds, possibly forcing the flyer to fly off the board or face impending doom.

That's what it looks like so far, yeah.

I think that GW is trying to strike a balance between AA units that completely nerf flyers by blowing them up in one turn and introducing a mechanic that makes running both flyers and AA a little more dynamic and exciting (perhaps even "cinematic"). Now that the mechanic has been introduced, we could see variations on the theme, such as IG units that get chaff (fire like a smoke launcher to remove all "savant-locked" missile tokens) or appropriately Orky "Heat-Seekas" (savant-locked missiles that strike against rear armor but on a savant-lock roll of 1, they veer off course, homing in on the nearest vehicle instead). That's my hope, at least.

Youngblood13 wrote:
Orky "Heat-Seekas" (savant-locked missiles that strike against rear armor but on a savant-lock roll of 1, they veer off course, homing in on the nearest vehicle instead). That's my hope, at least.

and very onld school Orky

Teaser is online on the GW blog. Pretty lame imho even for them...

HAHAHAHAHA those centurians! hahahahaha i'm so getting some to put Ork heads on they look like Stompas! new mega armored nobz!

So...any actual News or Rumors in here?

Or are we too close to the release date now?

In other words:

So since there is nothing on the first page, am I right to assume there will be nothing done with deathwatch?

ClockworkZion wrote:

 tvih wrote:

 HisDivineShadow wrote:
It may weighing in late, but that Savant lock sounds incredibly broken. Even misses give you a chance to hit ? How is that balanced?

Oh dear... I'm sorry, but my two reactions to this are best summarized as and

It's a one shot gun it's coming off of, so I see it as a fair trade. And it's not like anyone who is worried about those markers (by the way, it's 5+ for the missiles to hit, just tossing it out there. It's not like it's Space Marine BS here) can't just fly off the board to get rid of them.

I'm curious if the markers go away if the missile fails to hit a second time (on that 5+).


Automatically Appended Next Post:.

From 40k Radio:

Two things to clarify from stuff I am seeing pop up
-Yes Sicarius still has Rites of Battle
-And no Melta Weapons are not in the Flame Weapon category...not quite sure where this train of thought came from

One shot? That makes it a little more balanced, then. There was no mention of it being a one shot Seeking HK in the first post.

ho hum.

It's Wood Elves!

I like that the video is even named "AND THEY SHALL KNOW NO FEAR".

 reds8n wrote:





ho hum.

Perhaps you'd prefer meatspin for 3 hours straight? Or perhaps a Plasticwax generated trailer costing twice GW's operating budget for a fiscal year?

Okay, so August 31 they communicate the new releases. When can we actually get them? A week later? Two weeks?

Good lord, how does GW produce such lame teaser content and post them to social media without shame? :lol:

"Okay, so here's the plan: We'll show this blurry, out of focus picture of a guy looking like cyborg Jesus. Then, get this, we'll flip the image to mirror on the other side of the frame. It's gonna be awesome."

For me a teaser trailer should provide one with an actual hint or tease of what you are actually going to be able to buy, albeit in silhouette or a partial shot etc etc.

As it is it just looks like an artistic interpretation of a Nine inch Nails video.

Which is fine in its own right but , for me, fails rather grandly with regards to what it should be doing.

More worryingly/depressingly , I am not surprised at this at all.

 reds8n wrote:





ho hum.

GW has this habit of making really bad films with Windows movie maker. They could, you know, show the models, maybe a few images of the sprues or talk about the codex?

 Salted Diamond wrote:
I might have missed it somewhere, but are the limited ed covers going to be the same price as the regular? I didn't pay attention when the Tau and Eldar limited ones came out to remember.

Not a chance. Hell will have long frozen over before that happens. You're looking at close to double a regular codex, maybe more considering its SM.

Sort of wasn't a teaser. These vids are as the content within them state pay attention to our website on this date for something special. As with every release they will post subsequent vids about what new purchases will be coming. All in all though it's a courtesy to us fans. They are under no obligation to do a thing. Defending GW something I loathe doing.

warscribe888 wrote:
Sort of wasn't a teaser. These vids are as the content within them state pay attention to our website on this date for something special. As with every release they will post subsequent vids about what new purchases will be coming. All in all though it's a courtesy to us fans. They are under no obligation to do a thing. Defending GW something I loathe doing.

They may show a second equally mediocre video. They won't talk about the product until Friday when things are up for preorder. If they were doing the fans a courtesy, they would've pulled the old codex (and potentially BT codex if that rumor is true) from the store. Now om those noms.

What is that image supposed to *be* anyhow?

Maybe someone messed up and it's an Inquisition model in the video instead of a marine one :p

Seems about par for the course for GW.

Its suppossed to be a marine undergoing gene-editing. Or something.

 Compel wrote:
What is that image supposed to *be* anyhow?

Maybe someone messed up and it's an Inquisition model in the video instead of a marine one :p

Seems about par for the course for GW.

it's an Astartes with cables plugged into all his neural shunts, most likely during his final series of surgeries. I for one liked the vid if that wasn't clear from my previous posts. Just enough to get me excited and pumped while waiting for my pre-workout to kick in.

 reds8n wrote:
For me a teaser trailer should provide one with an actual hint or tease of what you are actually going to be able to buy, albeit in silhouette or a partial shot etc etc.

To be fair, the video itself is labeled "AND THEY SHALL KNOW NO FEAR".

And I'm fairly sure at this point that it was GW themselves who leaked those nice, clean in focus photos of the upcoming releases.

I thought it was Lady Ga-Ga's latest outfit

As much as I hate UM... their LE cover is awesome.

Lucarikx

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Good lord, how does GW produce such lame teaser content and post them to social media without shame? :lol:

"Okay, so here's the plan: We'll show this blurry, out of focus picture of a guy looking like cyborg Jesus. Then, get this, we'll flip the image to mirror on the other side of the frame. It's gonna be awesome."

My good man! let us not forget that GW's employees work based on effort and attitude, not so much about skill or knowledge.

All kidding aside, I do agree. Considering PP has only been around for a decade and they are already planning to decimate the miniatures race by superior advertising and 3rd party interest through video game development and other media; meanwhile GW has been around since the 70's and are churning out media like this? It can be determined that the hobbying of GW is dead and a strict focus on profits is here.