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.

So does this mean that for the next 2 years at least, tournaments will be won by some combination of webway portal wraith eldar or skitarii drop pod alpha strikers? Because I have to say I am not a fan of 2 factions being used as a cheap taxi service in order to boost 2 already powerful armies.

 Orock wrote:
So does this mean that for the next 2 years at least, tournaments will be won by some combination of webway portal wraith eldar or skitarii drop pod alpha strikers? Because I have to say I am not a fan of 2 factions being used as a cheap taxi service in order to boost 2 already powerful armies.

This is still not a balance whine thread, especially when we have no confirmation of rules outside 2 or 3 units. Stop.

With the look of the units we've seen showing no major changes, I hope the formation bonuses a/o army wide stuff is nice.

It'll be interesting to see how the Gladius is handled. I'd love to take Tacticals again, and assuming Grav Cannons aren't ridiculous I would have a reason to run Tacticals in pods again.
That said, I was primarily a Carcharodon runner, so they'd need a buff pretty significant.

*sigh* where is the damn Dark Angels book?

I like how they update the SM book 3 times before they update the DA book twice. Why did I buy the worst armies in 40k.

 TedNugent wrote:
*sigh* where is the damn Dark Angels book?

I like how they update the SM book 3 times before they update the DA book twice. Why did I buy the worst armies in 40k.

It's due very shortly after I think. And it's more like the SM book is updated twice before DA, and literally just before.

 ImAGeek wrote:


It's due very shortly after I think. And it's more like the SM book is updated twice before DA, and literally just before.

Okay, let's hope it's worth it this time, or I'm gonna have to spraypaint my Dark Angels blue, lol.

 Nevelon wrote:
With the look of the units we've seen showing no major changes, I hope the formation bonuses a/o army wide stuff is nice.

I am hoping but not counting on the same. I will gladly get the third tactical squad and rhino I need to complete the GSF if it is actually worth it.

 TedNugent wrote:
*sigh* where is the damn Dark Angels book?

I like how they update the SM book 3 times before they update the DA book twice. Why did I buy the worst armies in 40k.

Black Templars send their regards.

Templars should never have had their own book anyway, well neither should any of the chapters if we're getting down to it, but my point is that we already had that theme with dark angels

Templars: knights, non codex organisation, shady dealings with the imperium at large
Angels: knights, non codex organisation, shady dealings with the imperium at large

They are similar enough that I happily used models from the Templars with little work and used them in my dark angels, with the advent of supplements I'd happily see both rolled into codex marines and a supplement for both, I'd happily still see a supplement for Templars, but not a stand alone codex.

I dont care if the DA get nerfed even more, its what I play and that wont change. I do expect them to get quite a few boosts however.

 Kirasu wrote:
Hm,, New assault squad is more points due to loss of free drop pod and new dev kit has 40pt grav cannons? Is GW trying to make the new kits invalid?

Very confusing way to boost a new SM book but then again GW simply refuses to be creative with SMs.

I must have missed it -- where were the point costs for the new grav cannons?

 Talys wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Hm,, New assault squad is more points due to loss of free drop pod and new dev kit has 40pt grav cannons? Is GW trying to make the new kits invalid?

Very confusing way to boost a new SM book but then again GW simply refuses to be creative with SMs.

I must have missed it -- where were the point costs for the new grav cannons?

No where yet, but someone who saw the book reported them as "nearly double what a lascannon costs". Lascannons are 20 at the moment, so that would put them at 35-40. Considering lascannons USED to cost 35, I don't think GW has an issue pricing them there.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Well least there is no size restriction on the infantry that can go in the drop pod in its own rules. So that rumor/speculation is busted.

Downside is that it's another source for Free Ride lists.

I'm sure the next edition that comes out in three months or so will take away dedicated transports for battle brothers. And then 9th will bring it back.

Easier fix:
Drop Pods only should have been available as Dedicated Transports.

the problem isnt that Drop Pods should only be for marines, the problem is that drop pods are entirely too good.

They complete circumvent all the problems with DS reserves. They come down first turn, they have no risk, and they let you move after landing.

No wonder everyone wants them.

 Talys wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Hm,, New assault squad is more points due to loss of free drop pod and new dev kit has 40pt grav cannons? Is GW trying to make the new kits invalid?

Very confusing way to boost a new SM book but then again GW simply refuses to be creative with SMs.

I must have missed it -- where were the point costs for the new grav cannons?

There was a rumor they were double that of a lascannon.

Wow, those Land Raiders can be used by Dark Angels? Why does that thing have to be so hideous but so gewd.

Skyfire to any unit within 12"? Or Tank Hunters?

So I could just make my 4 Devastator Lascannons instantly have Skyfire every turn?

Good god. THAT is anti-aircraft ability.

I think that GW basically believe their own fluff. So they are not too worried about inadvertently making say Eldar Jetbikes with scatterlasers overpowered, because obviously Marines can beat them easily, like in the novels.

Terminators though? Wow, better make those guys really expensive, because Marines are already utterly deadly, and whoa, if we're not careful we might unbalance the entire game by making a 2+ armour save too common!

Yeah...nothing about any of the rumors is exciting to me at all. Does anyone else feel the same way?

Looks like I'll be sticking with my Necrons for another couple of years until they release a new Space Marines codex.

Less nerd rage, more leaks please!

 Olgerth Istaarn wrote:
The GW apologists truly provide endless entertainment. Because EVERYTHING IS AWESOME.

If we could all try to avoid labelling people with cute little tags for the heinous offense of having a different opinion to our own, that would be great .

Yes, the base "expander" I had seen before, it is an option, I feel pointless since if the base is done it will be irritating to paint up to the rest of the base.

I think the name calling happens when we run out of logical arguments and with what we have seen so far it is "pretty much the same as before". Makes for little in exciting conversation.

I guess I will wait and see if "my" codex makes BT new and shiny or a unhappy shelving of the army.

 Formosa wrote:
Templars should never have had their own book anyway, well neither should any of the chapters if we're getting down to it, but my point is that we already had that theme with dark angels

Templars: knights, non codex organisation, shady dealings with the imperium at large
Angels: knights, non codex organisation, shady dealings with the imperium at large

They are similar enough that I happily used models from the Templars with little work and used them in my dark angels, with the advent of supplements I'd happily see both rolled into codex marines and a supplement for both, I'd happily still see a supplement for Templars, but not a stand alone codex.

Agreed - its a missed opportunity.

Stand alone Codexes means loads of crappy "new" and "themed" units - hate the majority of them.....

but at least its not a cheesedex like the Eldar one.

 Wilson wrote:
Less nerd rage, more leaks please!

agreed

Yes, apologies. I let silly 'feelings' get the best of me. If you can't counter the message, don't attack the messenger. I'll do better.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion (no matter how wrong it is )

On topic: I will NOT be rebasing anything. That is just too much. Honestly have we heard anything rules wise that really changes anything? I mean it still sounds like tactical marines are just as 'blah' as before.

Has there been any information regarding Tactical Squad getting reboxed with 32mm bases? Or do I need to throw in some seperat once in my next order of tacs?

Because you know, I'm all about that base

 Formosa wrote:
Templars should never have had their own book anyway, well neither should any of the chapters if we're getting down to it, but my point is that we already had that theme with dark angels

Templars: knights, non codex organisation, shady dealings with the imperium at large
Angels: knights, non codex organisation, shady dealings with the imperium at large

They are similar enough that I happily used models from the Templars with little work and used them in my dark angels, with the advent of supplements I'd happily see both rolled into codex marines and a supplement for both, I'd happily still see a supplement for Templars, but not a stand alone codex.

Actually, the Templars are heavily based around the Teutonic Knights, while the Dark Angels play much into the fictional, conspiracy-laced imagery of the Knights Templar. They're very much two entirely different animals, and they definitely play much, much differently on the table.

Have all the new pics been gathered up somewhere convenient?

 Formosa wrote:
Templars should never have had their own book anyway, well neither should any of the chapters if we're getting down to it, but my point is that we already had that theme with dark angels

Templars: knights, non codex organisation, shady dealings with the imperium at large
Angels: knights, non codex organisation, shady dealings with the imperium at large

They are similar enough that I happily used models from the Templars with little work and used them in my dark angels, with the advent of supplements I'd happily see both rolled into codex marines and a supplement for both, I'd happily still see a supplement for Templars, but not a stand alone codex.

At one point, after Codex Armageddon came out, Templars were the most popular Marine chapter being played, which is why they got their own book and upgrades etc.
The book was very powerful, winning tournaments up until it was nerfed by FAQ's and then finally replaced.

I'm really hoping that there are some awesome chapter specific detachments. Like something to make Black Templar Crusader squads, and to make them more durable. Would be excellent.

 flukezor wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Hm,, New assault squad is more points due to loss of free drop pod and new dev kit has 40pt grav cannons?

I must have missed it -- where were the point costs for the new grav cannons?

There was a rumor they were double that of a lascannon.

Oh, I see. I read that in a different way. I had seen somewhere that Devastators were getting free Heavy Bolters (10 points). That would make Lascannons a 10 point upgrade, and Grav Cannons a 20 point upgrade (which would make them awesome).

But I dunno, I guess we'll see soon


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
Have all the new pics been gathered up somewhere convenient?

Faeit and BoLS both have lots of pics, but they're spread out a little in a couple of threads. There aren't any good leaks, really, though.