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.

GAdvance wrote:

No way any of those things are getting squatted, they're all in the index for one and the Templars have been picked out as the only non-first founding chapter with their own chapter tactics.

To be fair, Squats were also included in the initial 'Black Codex' lists in 2nd edition, and then never received any 2nd edition model releases or a codex. So inclusion in the Index isn't automatically proof that they'll continue to receive support.

 MLaw wrote:

 NivlacSupreme wrote:
If Primaris have a PA clad assault unit GW can have my money.

And FW can have some too. I suddenly have the urge to build some superhuman madmen wielding chainaxes

I've been contemplating buying some AOS Blood Warriors for Berzerkers.. they seem very very tall.. I dunno about Primaris size but they're definitely taller than the old zerkers. After seeing all the new sculpts for Chaos lately I'm beyond stoked to see what World Eaters are gonna look like.

If I know GW, im honna hazard a guess: exactly the same sculpt

 insaniak wrote:

GAdvance wrote:

No way any of those things are getting squatted, they're all in the index for one and the Templars have been picked out as the only non-first founding chapter with their own chapter tactics.

To be fair, Squats were also included in the initial 'Black Codex' lists in 2nd edition, and then never received any 2nd edition model releases or a codex. So inclusion in the Index isn't automatically proof that they'll continue to receive support.

Yeah except we've seen chapter tactics for them leaked already and had that leak essentially referenced in an article from GW. Crusader Squads have been a staple of a relatively popular and dare i say universally like space marine chapter since it's introduction and there is no reason for GW to get rid of them, sword brethren are company veterans through and through and all of this is academic anyway when they're all still being sold.

I would literally bet my collection on them all being in the codex

Just thinking about how defensively solid Iron Hands Primaris would be.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
As a Salamander-player I'm torn on our new CT.

+ It's good. Re-rolls are handy. It's not amazing, but pretty good.
+ It benefits both shooty and fighty-units, unlike some of the other CT's who only affect certain units.

? It pushes for MSU/Combat Squads. Some may like this, but I personally like larger units.

- It's extremely boring. It's not Iron-Hands-boring, but still boring. It feels alittle lazy from GW, like they didn't quite know what to do with Salamanders.
- Almost no synergy what so ever with the signature weapons of the Salamanders; Flamers. If I could change one thing about our CT, it is so that you could, instead of rerolling the to-hit roll when shooting, reroll the D6 for the number of hits on a single flame-weapon in the unit.

All in all, I rate this new CT "meh".
I love my flamers, and currently Ultramarines do flamers way better than Salamanders. :

They will probably get a flamer buff in the form of a strategem.
GW said they wanted the CT to benefit all units, no matter what they are equipped with, so it seems that CT = General Buffs, Strategem = specific buffs.

Yeah I thought the lack of fiery death in their CT was weird at first but someone else mentioned this and it makes sense and I like it. Chapter Tactic to give everyone a buff, CP for individual buff targeting.

So I wonder what this means for other chapters.

Dark Angels: +1 to hit (or reroll) when overwatching? Would be traditional I suppose - also pretty situational and meh.

Heartland wrote:
So I wonder what this means for other chapters.

Dark Angels: +1 to hit (or reroll) when overwatching? Would be traditional I suppose - also pretty situational and meh.

Or models that get a 1 for plasma are not slain but take a mortal wound. As that's also fluffy.

Just need to quickly do my GW "lazy rules writing" check. Does the rule:

A) Allow a unit to re-roll something?

B) Allow a unit to ignore something? (normally a core game rule)

Ultramarines: B
White Scars: 1/2 of B (not bad!)
Imperial Fists: B
Salamanders: A
Raven Guard: No! (woohoo!)
Iron Hands: No (though the "roll this to ignore the results is still pretty "meh")
Black Templars: A

I guess that's some progress.

No wolves on Fenris wrote:
Just thinking about how defensively solid Iron Hands Primaris would be.

Not much at all because a 6+ to ignore a wound sucks. The game is about offense and killing the opposing units AND a 6+ or better ignore wound ability is super common currently.

str00dles1 wrote:

Heartland wrote:
So I wonder what this means for other chapters.

Dark Angels: +1 to hit (or reroll) when overwatching? Would be traditional I suppose - also pretty situational and meh.

Or models that get a 1 for plasma are not slain but take a mortal wound. As that's also fluffy.

I'd be severely disappointed in a chapter rule for my DA that helps only terminators that take PC, hellblasters and combi-plasma/plasma pistol HQs.

Anyone else think that the BA and DA codexes will see the release of more generic primaris units?

Next chapter focus is up for Salamanders!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/19/chapter-focus-salamanders-july19gw-homepage-post-3/

No, I don't think so. Chapter specific Primaris are more likely.
If all future releases would be the same for all chapters, the differences between them would become miniscule. And I can't see GW to ever merge the snowflakes with the vanillas.

Agressors can fire twice if they don't move in the Movement phase:



Pretty awesome, maybe Centurions have a contender now for the heavy support slot? They have their missile launchers I think, so they could do some damage.

Nice bonus infos on the Aggressors: rumoured Flamers confirmed and can fire twice if they didn't move.

Atleast GW fully understands its all about shooting in this edition more so then ever and all characters are is a reroll tax you pay to have a firebase

Glad to see aggressors can shoot twice. Im sure the mini chain gun they have will be the better option then 8 inch flamers

 Kirasu wrote:

No wolves on Fenris wrote:
Just thinking about how defensively solid Iron Hands Primaris would be.

Not much at all because a 6+ to ignore a wound sucks. The game is about offense and killing the opposing units AND a 6+ or better ignore wound ability is super common currently.

I disagree. In my play group we've been heavily experimenting with all sorts of units and rules as we have about 12 armies worth of models to play with and we have found that 5+ and 6+ "Ignore X" rules are extremely useful. Twice they've caused me to win, due to the inability of my opponent to get that 1 last wound through.

 Elbows wrote:
Just need to quickly do my GW "lazy rules writing" check. Does the rule:

A) Allow a unit to re-roll something?

B) Allow a unit to ignore something? (normally a core game rule)

Ultramarines: B
White Scars: 1/2 of B (not bad!)
Imperial Fists: B
Salamanders: A
Raven Guard: No! (woohoo!)
Iron Hands: No (though the "roll this to ignore the results is still pretty "meh")
Black Templars: A

I guess that's some progress.

This gives me the impression that you simply don't have a strong grasp of rules writing. Even putting the verdict aside, those two factors are not at all how one would measure the laziness of rules writing. It's like trying to determine how powerful a weapon option is by barrel length on the model.

 Togusa wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

No wolves on Fenris wrote:
Just thinking about how defensively solid Iron Hands Primaris would be.

Not much at all because a 6+ to ignore a wound sucks. The game is about offense and killing the opposing units AND a 6+ or better ignore wound ability is super common currently.

I disagree. In my play group we've been heavily experimenting with all sorts of units and rules as we have about 12 armies worth of models to play with and we have found that 5+ and 6+ "Ignore X" rules are extremely useful. Twice they've caused me to win, due to the inability of my opponent to get that 1 last wound through.

I'm sure everything in the game has caused someone to win a game at least once. It's still not good when you consider the math behind the overall effect, especially vs multiple damage hits (unless you're playing the rule incorrectly since if a 1 wound model takes 6 damage from a Lascannon it needs to roll 6 6+ Ignore Wound rolls to survive).

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Just need to quickly do my GW "lazy rules writing" check. Does the rule:

A) Allow a unit to re-roll something?

B) Allow a unit to ignore something? (normally a core game rule)

Ultramarines: B
White Scars: 1/2 of B (not bad!)
Imperial Fists: B
Salamanders: A
Raven Guard: No! (woohoo!)
Iron Hands: No (though the "roll this to ignore the results is still pretty "meh")
Black Templars: A

I guess that's some progress.

This gives me the impression that you simply don't have a strong grasp of rules writing. Even putting the verdict aside, those two factors are not at all how one would measure the laziness of rules writing. It's like trying to determine how powerful a weapon option is by barrel length on the model.

I'm more interested in what Elbows would give as bonuses instead since these are all lazy.

When you total the number of wounds in your army and then realize that you'll be rolling that many dice before they are all dead, the 1 in 6 starts showing up quite a bit.

Primaris squad of 10 = 20 wounds. 23.33 wounds for Ironhands. And with splitting fire now, people need to make tough calls to get the most out of their shooting and when something was "supposed" to wipe something out and then it doesn't because you rolled a six every now and again? That can totally mess with the opponent's plan.

 frozenwastes wrote:
When you total the number of wounds in your army and then realize that you'll be rolling that many dice before they are all dead, the 1 in 6 starts showing up quite a bit.

Primaris squad of 10 = 20 wounds. 23.33 wounds for Ironhands. And with splitting fire now, people need to make tough calls to get the most out of their shooting and when something was "supposed" to wipe something out and then it doesn't because you rolled a six every now and again? That can totally mess with the opponent's plan.

This. And 20 wounds actually becomes 24 wounds; your opponent needs to cause 6 wounds for 5 of them to get through.

 frozenwastes wrote:
When you total the number of wounds in your army and then realize that you'll be rolling that many dice before they are all dead, the 1 in 6 starts showing up quite a bit.

Primaris squad of 10 = 20 wounds. 23.33 wounds for Ironhands. And with splitting fire now, people need to make tough calls to get the most out of their shooting and when something was "supposed" to wipe something out and then it doesn't because you rolled a six every now and again? That can totally mess with the opponent's plan.

Unless the opponent has weapons that cause 2 wounds per hit or more then the effectiveness of Primaris drops significantly as does the benefit of any Ignore Wound abilities. Ravenguard -1 to hit is vastly superior because a weapon that does 3 damage suffers a large reduction in effectiveness. However if that same weapon wounds an Iron Hand then you must make 3 6+ rolls to ignore all the damage, which obviously is significantly worse (Unless you're playing the rule wrong)

 Kirasu wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
When you total the number of wounds in your army and then realize that you'll be rolling that many dice before they are all dead, the 1 in 6 starts showing up quite a bit.

Primaris squad of 10 = 20 wounds. 23.33 wounds for Ironhands. And with splitting fire now, people need to make tough calls to get the most out of their shooting and when something was "supposed" to wipe something out and then it doesn't because you rolled a six every now and again? That can totally mess with the opponent's plan.

Unless the opponent has weapons that cause 2 wounds per hit or more then the effectiveness of Primaris drops significantly as does the benefit of any Ignore Wound abilities. Ravenguard -1 to hit is vastly superior because a weapon that does 3 damage suffers a large reduction in effectiveness. However if that same weapon wounds an Iron Hand then you must make 3 6+ rolls to ignore all the damage, which obviously is significantly worse (Unless you're playing the rule wrong)

There are few weapons in the game which do 3 damage, and if they are shooting your 2-wound infantry with them that's probably a good thing since they are largely wasting a third of that potential. If they are doing it specifically to bypass the 6+ saving a 2-wound model from a 2-damage weapon, then that's a pretty strong benefit.

 Kirasu wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
When you total the number of wounds in your army and then realize that you'll be rolling that many dice before they are all dead, the 1 in 6 starts showing up quite a bit.

Primaris squad of 10 = 20 wounds. 23.33 wounds for Ironhands. And with splitting fire now, people need to make tough calls to get the most out of their shooting and when something was "supposed" to wipe something out and then it doesn't because you rolled a six every now and again? That can totally mess with the opponent's plan.

Unless the opponent has weapons that cause 2 wounds per hit or more then the effectiveness of Primaris drops significantly as does the benefit of any Ignore Wound abilities. Ravenguard -1 to hit is vastly superior because a weapon that does 3 damage suffers a large reduction in effectiveness. However if that same weapon wounds an Iron Hand then you must make 3 6+ rolls to ignore all the damage, which obviously is significantly worse (Unless you're playing the rule wrong)

If I recall the push back on deep strikers is 9 inches right?

Iron hands is always on, raven guard is not. Many of the benefits from other chapter tactics are more powerful because they are situational. The ones that are always on seem lack luster in comparision but you always benefit.

It doesn't actually matter if the weapon does d3, 3 or 2 wounds as that's how many dice you'll roll. This isn't an armour save. This is after that. So if someone overcharges a bunch of plasma cannon shots and manages to do 10 unsaved hits and does 20 wounds, you'll still be rolling those 20 dice and cancelling wounds on a 6.

I'm not saying it's amazing. It is still a 6 on a d6. I just don't think it should be written off as being bad. Anyone who has been playing (or playing against) blood warriors in age of sigmar knows not to write off the "on a roll of 6" rules there either.

That said, I think I may end up making my successor chapter based on the salamanders as I like high damage output low shot count weapons like multimeltas and lascannons/missile launchers. So I like the idea of a dreadnought getting a reroll on a multimelta shot that went wrong.

 frozenwastes wrote:
It doesn't actually matter if the weapon does d3, 3 or 2 wounds as that's how many dice you'll roll. This isn't an armour save. This is after that. So if someone overcharges a bunch of plasma cannon shots and manages to do 10 unsaved hits and does 20 wounds, you'll still be rolling those 20 dice and cancelling wounds on a 6.

I'm not saying it's amazing. It is still a 6 on a d6. I just don't think it should be written off as being bad. Anyone who has been playing (or playing against) blood warriors in age of sigmar knows not to write off the "on a roll of 6" rules there either.

That said, I think I may end up making my successor chapter based on the salamanders as I like high damage output low shot count weapons like multimeltas and lascannons/missile launchers. So I like the idea of a dreadnought getting a reroll on a multimelta shot that went wrong.

That 6 comes in handy more often than you think. Back in 3rd edition, my favorite army to play was Ork Speed Freeks (hence my dakka username) and I took the armor plates that negated damage on a 6 on every vehicle as trukks were also used for fall back. At 5 points, if it only ever saved a vehicle once in a game, it paid for every upgrade in the whole army (8 trukks iirc in my 1500pt force at the time) for that game. It's not reliable on any one particular roll but it's quite nifty to have overall. I personally prefer that always available type of rule and my favorites so far is probably the salamander one for that reason. YMMV.

Honestly I think this is a very good batch of chapter tactics. They seem balanced (enough) and people are going with the one they like for their army rather than feeling forced into a clearly superior option. We'll see how things pan out, but initial impressions are pretty good for me.

 Leth wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
When you total the number of wounds in your army and then realize that you'll be rolling that many dice before they are all dead, the 1 in 6 starts showing up quite a bit.

Primaris squad of 10 = 20 wounds. 23.33 wounds for Ironhands. And with splitting fire now, people need to make tough calls to get the most out of their shooting and when something was "supposed" to wipe something out and then it doesn't because you rolled a six every now and again? That can totally mess with the opponent's plan.

Unless the opponent has weapons that cause 2 wounds per hit or more then the effectiveness of Primaris drops significantly as does the benefit of any Ignore Wound abilities. Ravenguard -1 to hit is vastly superior because a weapon that does 3 damage suffers a large reduction in effectiveness. However if that same weapon wounds an Iron Hand then you must make 3 6+ rolls to ignore all the damage, which obviously is significantly worse (Unless you're playing the rule wrong)

If I recall the push back on deep strikers is 9 inches right?

Iron hands is always on, raven guard is not. Many of the benefits from other chapter tactics are more powerful because they are situational. The ones that are always on seem lack luster in comparision but you always benefit.

If you're playing Raven Guard, Bobby G, or any flavor of Imperial Shooty, and you don't have ten-ish Scouts to block-deepstriker shots, you're probably doing it wrong. If I am playing Raven Guard, and give my opponent a chance to bypass their AMAZING CT, thats because i'm playing badly. :-p

I've seen folks mention here that the role (dev, assault, etc) markings have changed meaning somewhat in the 8e rulebook. Have there been any previews yet of other codex style markings changing with Primaris marines?

 warboss wrote:
I've seen folks mention here that the role (dev, assault, etc) markings have changed meaning somewhat in the 8e rulebook. Have there been any previews yet of other codex style markings changing with Primaris marines?

Probably not as the box came with standard markings.

the only one special is the lieutenant just a skull with halo.