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.

 Orock wrote:

Killermonkey wrote:
I don't know if anyone has brought this up or not.... I play a pretty heavy forgeworld iron hands list with a master of the forge so that I can take more than 1 "relic of the armory" tank. What are the odds that this is now broken because there is no longer a master of the forge option in the codex?

I would hope that they will FAQ it to state just techmarine or remove the requirement.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651749.page


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
It is broken, they won't FAQ it, make do. Just like Blood Angels make do since the Reclusiarch is gone. House rule it, like every other broken rule in the game. Turn it into an HQ Techmarine or whatever the best equivalent becomes.

House ruling has always been possible. His question is "if I am playing in a tournament, are they going to let me use my sicarian, raptor, and contemptor all at once" and the answer is no.

What tournament has their heads up their backsides as much as GW? ITC put out a FAQ very promptly allowing Blood Angels to take a Chaplain instead of a Reclusiarch, and Space Wolves to take a normal Rune Priest and skipping the Saga of the whatever. That is a tournament house rule that any organizer can understandably get behind. Asking a tournament organizer to house rule it is endlessly more helpful than waiting for a GW FAQ that will never come.

 Talys wrote:
Hmmm. Just noticed that Vulkan has FNP instead of Iron Resolve! That's a cool buff.

That is one thing that concerns me about these leaks.
Lysander is also written as FnP, yet picture “leaks” from the digital preview says Lysander have Iron Resolve.
So either they changed the Iron Resolve trait from the old thing to be FnP or parts of these rumors are wrong.

WindsOfFury wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Hmmm. Just noticed that Vulkan has FNP instead of Iron Resolve! That's a cool buff.

That is one thing that concerns me about these leaks.
Lysander is also written as FnP, yet picture “leaks” from the digital preview says Lysander have Iron Resolve.
So either they changed the Iron Resolve trait from the old thing to be FnP or parts of these rumors are wrong.

To be fair Iron Resolve sounds very FNP eeeeeee

 SharkoutofWata wrote:

 Orock wrote:

Killermonkey wrote:
I don't know if anyone has brought this up or not.... I play a pretty heavy forgeworld iron hands list with a master of the forge so that I can take more than 1 "relic of the armory" tank. What are the odds that this is now broken because there is no longer a master of the forge option in the codex?

I would hope that they will FAQ it to state just techmarine or remove the requirement.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651749.page


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
It is broken, they won't FAQ it, make do. Just like Blood Angels make do since the Reclusiarch is gone. House rule it, like every other broken rule in the game. Turn it into an HQ Techmarine or whatever the best equivalent becomes.

House ruling has always been possible. His question is "if I am playing in a tournament, are they going to let me use my sicarian, raptor, and contemptor all at once" and the answer is no.

What tournament has their heads up their backsides as much as GW? ITC put out a FAQ very promptly allowing Blood Angels to take a Chaplain instead of a Reclusiarch, and Space Wolves to take a normal Rune Priest and skipping the Saga of the whatever. That is a tournament house rule that any organizer can understandably get behind. Asking a tournament organizer to house rule it is endlessly more helpful than waiting for a GW FAQ that will never come.

Well, our local TO gave up re-writing GW's game for them a while ago. So now its allllll the stupid broken stuff in the game is allowed. Mabye you should mention it on frontline gamings twitch stream, see if they plan on addressing this.

Counterattack and Rage could be cool for BTs but it's a shame that the Demi-Company could be locked out to BTs without an alternative formation for Crusader Squads.

If the Dread rumor is true, then awesome. Gives me another reason to run an Ironclad dread with the big Stormraven Squad I wanted to make.

From what I can see, does this mean that BT also lose out on their Accept any Challenge, No Matter Odds rule they had from before? That would suck if true, since it really fit their modelling after Sigismund's emphasis on close combat and challenging enemy champions.

 Grimskul wrote:
From what I can see, does this mean that BT also lose out on their Accept any Challenge, No Matter Odds rule they had from before? That would suck if true, since it really fit their modelling after Sigismund's emphasis on close combat and challenging enemy champions.

How does that suck? You can still challenge all you want and nobody is stopping you.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
From what I can see, does this mean that BT also lose out on their Accept any Challenge, No Matter Odds rule they had from before? That would suck if true, since it really fit their modelling after Sigismund's emphasis on close combat and challenging enemy champions.

How does that suck? You can still challenge all you want and nobody is stopping you.

...Because they lose fluffy buffs like re-roll to hits and rending?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
From what I can see, does this mean that BT also lose out on their Accept any Challenge, No Matter Odds rule they had from before? That would suck if true, since it really fit their modelling after Sigismund's emphasis on close combat and challenging enemy champions.

How does that suck? You can still challenge all you want and nobody is stopping you.

Fluff reasons presumably, just wouldn't "feel right" to turn challenges down as a Black Templar I'm guessing.

 Red Marine wrote:
All these formations dont fix SMs main problem. MEQ & Rhino chasis tanks are way to easy to destroy. Every post about any tactic, formation or unit is always, "But how many MEQ can it kill?". The demi or full company farmation are built on 50-100 MEQ. Theres no forum on any site lacking in "How to kill MEQ" posts.

No matter what happened with the new SM codex, though, this wasn't going to change. Making marines 'more elite' is a silly idea (and one undoubtedly favored by mostly Marine players, of course) - when they're -already- 'elite'. They're pretty much the standard by which everyone else is measured, at least in the groups I've played with before.

Why are there so many posts about beating MEQ forces? Maybe because MEQ forces make up the largest plurality in the community? I admit whenever I make a list, I always look first at AP3 weapons. When 99% of my opponent's army has a 3+ save - what do you expect us to do, go with AP4 weapons and just hope for the best?

And someone else (not you, Red) complained that the marine dread is 'only' AV12, and will suffer from focus fire... isn't that what -anyone- with AV12 and a powerful fig has to worry about? That isn't limited to marine dreads.

The codex offers upgrades. LOTS of upgrades. Some of them are strong (wasn't there something about free transports?), and some are subtle - but obviously some Marine players were hoping for more OOT goodness.

Talys makes some very level-headed comments- Marines are stronger now - even if they aren't as strong as some would like.

 Las wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Las wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:

Thedecay wrote:
6 attacks for charging Ironclaaaads!

But seriously, I can't even begin to explain how stoked I am that my Salamanders get a FnP vs heldrakes and doomsirens

Do they, though? Baleflamer is not a "Flamer Weapon" as defined in the BRB.

Why not? There is no "flamer" USR the way there's a melta USR. It also has flamer in the name and is a weapon specific to a codex. If the CT says FNP against flamer and heavy flamer specifically, sure. Otherwise I'd argue that they get it.

But "Flamer" also has a definition in the BRB and Baleflamer isn't in it.

Are Tau fusion weapons there under melta? And how do they interact with, say, ceramite plating? They have the melta rule right? (Honest question I'm nowhere near a brb)

Yeah, as mentioned ceramite plating protects against the bonus provided by melta, whereas all Flamer weapons are template weapons, but not all template weapons are Flamers, and in true sloppy tradition GW have utterly failed to address which are which beyond the first five minutes of the new ed..

Squirrel!

I wish I could take the new Command Land Raider as part of the spearhead. Bummer. Anyone know if Calgar went down in pts?

 Colpicklejar wrote:
I wish I could take the new Command Land Raider as part of the spearhead. Bummer. Anyone know if Calgar went down in pts?

He's apparently 275 points, so not from what I can remember.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Yeah, as mentioned ceramite plating protects against the bonus provided by melta, whereas all Flamer weapons are template weapons, but not all template weapons are Flamers, and in true sloppy tradition GW have utterly failed to address which are which beyond the first five minutes of the new ed..
Squirrel!

Well, all Flamer Weapons in the BRB are templates. Several 7th Ed. 'dexes have classified other weapons as flamer-type (Ork come to mind), one of which is a small blast and the other a large blast.

But yes, Baleflamers are NOT flamers as defined by the game. Absurd? Yes. When GW finally get's around to updating CSMs (ie. making them even worse and less flavourable. I had to, sorry ) they most likely will be.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Yeah, as mentioned ceramite plating protects against the bonus provided by melta, whereas all Flamer weapons are template weapons, but not all template weapons are Flamers, and in true sloppy tradition GW have utterly failed to address which are which beyond the first five minutes of the new ed..
Squirrel!

Well, all Flamer Weapons in the BRB are templates. Several 7th Ed. 'dexes have classified other weapons as flamer-type (Ork come to mind), one of which is a small blast and the other a large blast.

But yes, Baleflamers are NOT flamers as defined by the game. Absurd? Yes. When GW finally get's around to updating CSMs (ie. making them even worse and less flavourable. I had to, sorry ) they most likely will be.

Flamer is in the bloody name...

Mort wrote:
And someone else (not you, Red) complained that the marine dread is 'only' AV12, and will suffer from focus fire... isn't that what -anyone- with AV12 and a powerful fig has to worry about? That isn't limited to marine dreads.

Well, this one I can sort of get. AV 12 with weaker side/rear is absolutely awful for a non-skimmer unit and feels like a relic remaining from an age past not reflected in point costs with the Rhino being an exception. It is dirt cheap and easy to break. Nuking one for first blood is worthwhile. After that? Not so much.

AV 12 when you get cover/invo save? Fine. Otherwise one can make short work of it with S7.

containing flamer in the name =/= being a flamer-type ruleswise. It has to be specifically labeled as a flamer-type for it to be a flamer-type.

Stupid? Yes, but this is GW we're talking about here.

Okay so in an 1850 list, SM armies can get actually TWENTY free tanks, correct? Even just ten free tanks is completely ridiculous. For one, every single SM player is going to use a 10-tank Razorback screen from now on, giving a cover save to the rest of their army. There aren't enough turns in the game to counter it.

WIth 10-20 free tanks they don't even need a shooting phase, they can just roll onto all the objectives and there's basically nothing anyone can do.

Welcome to the age of spam and cookie cutter armies. If you thought it was bad before, you had no idea.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Las wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:

Thedecay wrote:
6 attacks for charging Ironclaaaads!

But seriously, I can't even begin to explain how stoked I am that my Salamanders get a FnP vs heldrakes and doomsirens

Do they, though? Baleflamer is not a "Flamer Weapon" as defined in the BRB.

Why not? There is no "flamer" USR the way there's a melta USR. It also has flamer in the name and is a weapon specific to a codex. If the CT says FNP against flamer and heavy flamer specifically, sure. Otherwise I'd argue that they get it.

But "Flamer" also has a definition in the BRB and Baleflamer isn't in it.

yeah, it is likely the Salamanders are not resistent to the raw chaos that heldrakes spew forth.

Still it isnt like heldrakes are that popular these days and my bet it when CSM get a new codex, heldrakes are going to get nerfed further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mercury14 wrote:
Okay so in an 1850 list, SM armies can get actually TWENTY free tanks, correct? Even just ten free tanks is completely ridiculous. For one, every single SM player is going to use a 10-tank Razorback screen from now on, giving a cover save to the rest of their army. There aren't enough turns in the game to counter it.

WIth 10-20 free tanks they don't even need a shooting phase, they can just roll onto all the objectives and there's basically nothing anyone can do.

Welcome to the age of spam and cookie cutter armies. If you thought it was bad before, you had no idea.

DE and Tau lost their cheap mass cary haywiregrenades....

mercury14 wrote:
Okay so in an 1850 list, SM armies can get actually TWENTY free tanks, correct? Even just ten free tanks is completely ridiculous. For one, every single SM player is going to use a 10-tank Razorback screen from now on, giving a cover save to the rest of their army. There aren't enough turns in the game to counter it.

WIth 10-20 free tanks they don't even need a shooting phase, they can just roll onto all the objectives and there's basically nothing anyone can do.

Welcome to the age of spam and cookie cutter armies. If you thought it was bad before, you had no idea.

I have to confess, I'm a little stupefied that so many people are excited about fielding a full company. I'm kind of bummed that the way to make this very fluffy list work is to simply make a third of it free.

mercury14 wrote:
Okay so in an 1850 list, SM armies can get actually TWENTY free tanks, correct? Even just ten free tanks is completely ridiculous. For one, every single SM player is going to use a 10-tank Razorback screen from now on, giving a cover save to the rest of their army. There aren't enough turns in the game to counter it.

WIth 10-20 free tanks they don't even need a shooting phase, they can just roll onto all the objectives and there's basically nothing anyone can do.

Welcome to the age of spam and cookie cutter armies. If you thought it was bad before, you had no idea.

Yeah, when you think ObSec you think Marines now. If the rumors are right and a company gives free vehicles and ObSec on everything, they're going to completely dominate any objective-based game. Just minimum 2x Assault, 2x Dev, and 6x Tac is 10 ObSec units with transports, and then add in Combat Squads. Yeah, kill all of that off of Objective Markers before the end of turn 5.

 Colpicklejar wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
Okay so in an 1850 list, SM armies can get actually TWENTY free tanks, correct? Even just ten free tanks is completely ridiculous. For one, every single SM player is going to use a 10-tank Razorback screen from now on, giving a cover save to the rest of their army. There aren't enough turns in the game to counter it.

WIth 10-20 free tanks they don't even need a shooting phase, they can just roll onto all the objectives and there's basically nothing anyone can do.

Welcome to the age of spam and cookie cutter armies. If you thought it was bad before, you had no idea.

I have to confess, I'm a little stupefied that so many people are excited about fielding a full company. I'm kind of bummed that the way to make this very fluffy list work is to simply make a third of it free.

Im not sure that people know what 10-20 free tanks looks like on the board.

mercury14 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Colpicklejar wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
Okay so in an 1850 list, SM armies can get actually TWENTY free tanks, correct? Even just ten free tanks is completely ridiculous. For one, every single SM player is going to use a 10-tank Razorback screen from now on, giving a cover save to the rest of their army. There aren't enough turns in the game to counter it.

WIth 10-20 free tanks they don't even need a shooting phase, they can just roll onto all the objectives and there's basically nothing anyone can do.

Welcome to the age of spam and cookie cutter armies. If you thought it was bad before, you had no idea.

I have to confess, I'm a little stupefied that so many people are excited about fielding a full company. I'm kind of bummed that the way to make this very fluffy list work is to simply make a third of it free.

Im not sure that people know what 10-20 free tanks looks like on the board.

So I guess play-to-win is in full swing now, huh?

 Accolade wrote:
So I guess play-to-win is in full swing now, huh?

Isn't that the point of a competitive game?

mercury14 wrote:

 Colpicklejar wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
Okay so in an 1850 list, SM armies can get actually TWENTY free tanks, correct? Even just ten free tanks is completely ridiculous. For one, every single SM player is going to use a 10-tank Razorback screen from now on, giving a cover save to the rest of their army. There aren't enough turns in the game to counter it.

WIth 10-20 free tanks they don't even need a shooting phase, they can just roll onto all the objectives and there's basically nothing anyone can do.

Welcome to the age of spam and cookie cutter armies. If you thought it was bad before, you had no idea.

I have to confess, I'm a little stupefied that so many people are excited about fielding a full company. I'm kind of bummed that the way to make this very fluffy list work is to simply make a third of it free.

Im not sure that people know what 10-20 free tanks looks like on the board.

It looks like somewhere between 350-1100 free points.

Requizen wrote:

mercury14 wrote:

 Colpicklejar wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
Okay so in an 1850 list, SM armies can get actually TWENTY free tanks, correct? Even just ten free tanks is completely ridiculous. For one, every single SM player is going to use a 10-tank Razorback screen from now on, giving a cover save to the rest of their army. There aren't enough turns in the game to counter it.

WIth 10-20 free tanks they don't even need a shooting phase, they can just roll onto all the objectives and there's basically nothing anyone can do.

Welcome to the age of spam and cookie cutter armies. If you thought it was bad before, you had no idea.

I have to confess, I'm a little stupefied that so many people are excited about fielding a full company. I'm kind of bummed that the way to make this very fluffy list work is to simply make a third of it free.

Im not sure that people know what 10-20 free tanks looks like on the board.

It looks like somewhere between 350-1100 free points.

I mean physically on the map. Gridlocked parking lot.

I play Dark Eldar and Harlequins. What possible chance for a fun game is there here for either me or the SM player?

I'm not sure people realize how much 20 'free' tanks costs

 SickSix wrote:
I'm not sure people realize how much 20 'free' tanks costs

Can't really start with that. If you start there, then you can't complain about Wraithknight or Wraithguard with D because those models cost quite a bit as well. Balance discussion is inherently divorced from modelling/hobby discussion.

with 10 free tanks in a 2-deep screen across the map, SM never have to worry about assault armies and their whole army gets a cover save. They could do that before but if cost them. Now it doesn't.

mercury14 wrote:
with 10 free tanks in a 2-deep screen across the map, SM never have to worry about assault armies and their whole army gets a cover save. They could do that before but if cost them. Now it doesn't.

Well, it still costs them. You're sinking most of your points into units that, I think every marine player would agree, are suboptimal. I see this list being the ultimate version of Reece's ravenguard rhino rush list- it's not going to kill much, but it will be nearly impossible to wipe off the objectives. Maybe that's gamebreaking in the tournament sense, but as a casual player I would MUCH rather see that over an army that cannot be killed and can hurt anything I have (Necrons), or an army that is nearly as durable as me with six times the firepower (eldar).

That said, I really hate the buy-10-get-them-all-free move. Prior to this sort of thing, I didn't think 40k was pay-to-win at all....land speeder storms and wyches cost just as much as wave serpents and fire dragons, after all. But this move to reward the player for having as many big huge models as possible (making them squadrons, giving them squadron bonuses, making them FREE with formations) is the first time I've felt pretty bad.