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.

 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?

Not that I saw.

It's less that the "role markings have changed" and more "they've been made to be more generalized, similar to the old Legion markings".

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 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

Paying points to screen space marine infantry effectively would kind of cut into the points neccessary to get enough space marine infantry to be a threat. Its why I think that all but the worse players (deployment zone camping armies) will have only very minor issues with RG CT. It in no way is a compelling enough CT to forego flyer spam which would murder whatever RG can bring that is maxing out its CT.

When does the starter set: Fire Strike hit retail? Im real confused on GW's pre-ordering. I paid for mine on the 8th, got a shipping notice on the 13th, it started moving and assumed I would have it sooner, but the estimated delivery date is the 22nd...

Chopxsticks wrote:
When does the starter set: Fire Strike hit retail? Im real confused on GW's pre-ordering. I paid for mine on the 8th, got a shipping notice on the 13th, it started moving and assumed I would have it sooner, but the estimated delivery date is the 22nd...

First Strike has already hit retail.

So, the thing to understand is that unless you have it delivered to one of their stores? It's going to arrive after the retail release.
Rule of thumb is this:
Preorders are on Saturdays. Retail release is the following Saturday.
Home delivery is anytime after retail release.

If you do the preorder in one of their stores and pay in store at the till, you can have it shipped to the store at no cost whether it is $60 or less.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:
When does the starter set: Fire Strike hit retail? Im real confused on GW's pre-ordering. I paid for mine on the 8th, got a shipping notice on the 13th, it started moving and assumed I would have it sooner, but the estimated delivery date is the 22nd...

First Strike has already hit retail.

So, the thing to understand is that unless you have it delivered to one of their stores? It's going to arrive after the retail release.
Rule of thumb is this:
Preorders are on Saturdays. Retail release is the following Saturday.
Home delivery is anytime after retail release.

If you do the preorder in one of their stores and pay in store at the till, you can have it shipped to the store at no cost whether it is $60 or less.

This from the GW website might also be helpful:

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Frequently-Asked-Questions#3

uh.. I just went down to my LFG, not an offical GW store but they have had the product since Saturday. So lesson learned, I wont be pre-ordering things from GW's site when I can get free shipping and store discounts... /facepalm

For those interested in the reclassifying of the traditional squad role symbols

I just want to reiterate that this is nothing new. Assault Centurions had the Close Support symbols in 7e, as did bikes and Land Speeders. Devastator Centurions had the Fire Support symbol.

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

Possibly more than just flamers. The only other thing I know of that's "Flamestorm" is on the LRR, so the Flamestorm Guantlets could be a good bit more potent than just flamers or even heavy flamers.

shade1313 wrote:

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

Possibly more than just flamers. The only other thing I know of that's "Flamestorm" is on the LRR, so the Flamestorm Guantlets could be a good bit more potent than just flamers or even heavy flamers.

If I had to hazard a guess, Flamestorm Gauntlets are just a Flamer variant of Boltstorm Gauntlets. Possibly even with a profile similar to a Hand Flamer the way Boltstorm Gauntlets have a profile similar to a Bolt Pistol.

Re: codex markings


Thanks for the info! Hopefully they'll preview more or do the usual codex compliant marking diagrams in the upcoming book.

shade1313 wrote:

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

Possibly more than just flamers. The only other thing I know of that's "Flamestorm" is on the LRR, so the Flamestorm Guantlets could be a good bit more potent than just flamers or even heavy flamers.

that'd be pretty nasty, useally the way to deal with a fire support unit is to rush in and charge it, Agressors are looking like this won't be an option and you'll just have to grimace and trade blows

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I just want to reiterate that this is nothing new. Assault Centurions had the Close Support symbols in 7e, as did bikes and Land Speeders. Devastator Centurions had the Fire Support symbol.

Some have the blast symbol for devsquads

personally i love the fire support symbol more.

 Desubot wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I just want to reiterate that this is nothing new. Assault Centurions had the Close Support symbols in 7e, as did bikes and Land Speeders. Devastator Centurions had the Fire Support symbol.

Some have the blast symbol for devsquads

personally i love the fire support symbol more.

Isn't the blast symbol just the Dark Angels variant of the Chevron? Same way that their Battleline symbol is a double sided horizontal arrow.

Looking through the 7e codex, I only see chevrons.

Edit: NM, found some blasts. Still, my point largely stands that this is not something new.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I just want to reiterate that this is nothing new. Assault Centurions had the Close Support symbols in 7e, as did bikes and Land Speeders. Devastator Centurions had the Fire Support symbol.

Some have the blast symbol for devsquads

personally i love the fire support symbol more.

Isn't the blast symbol just the Dark Angels variant of the Chevron? Same way that their Battleline symbol is a double sided horizontal arrow.

Looking through the 7e codex, I only see chevrons.

Edit: NM, found some blasts. Still, my point largely stands that this is not something new.

it's a variation I belive, the ultramarines have useally IIRC used Cheveons, but some chapters do sue blasts. and it's notable that per the transfer sheets, dark angels still do

BrianDavion wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I just want to reiterate that this is nothing new. Assault Centurions had the Close Support symbols in 7e, as did bikes and Land Speeders. Devastator Centurions had the Fire Support symbol.

Some have the blast symbol for devsquads

personally i love the fire support symbol more.

Isn't the blast symbol just the Dark Angels variant of the Chevron? Same way that their Battleline symbol is a double sided horizontal arrow.

Looking through the 7e codex, I only see chevrons.

Edit: NM, found some blasts. Still, my point largely stands that this is not something new.

it's a variation I belive, the ultramarines have useally IIRC used Cheveons, but some chapters do sue blasts. and it's notable that per the transfer sheets, dark angels still do

The examples of variants the Ultramarines use has the double Arrow and blast, so even those are normal. The book flat out says what corresponds to what.

I am chalking this reaction people are having to the typical "will bitch about everything."

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I just want to reiterate that this is nothing new. Assault Centurions had the Close Support symbols in 7e, as did bikes and Land Speeders. Devastator Centurions had the Fire Support symbol.

Bikers traditionally have worn wither Assault or Tactical symbols, depending on which company they were from. IIRC, Bikers from Battle Companies were generally Assault, while Reserve company bikers were Tactical. Might have that backwards, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:


I am chalking this reaction people are having to the typical "will bitch about everything."

Less that and more people just not keeping up with GW's ever-changing ideas on just how rigidly everyone sticks to the Codex Astartes, and what that actually means.

I have gone back all the way to the 3rd Ed codex (the earliest SM Dex I own). The squad markings were exactly the same back then. It is not new. It was the same for the 4e Dex, the 5e Dex, and 6e Dex. Perhaps the actual term applied is different (Battleline instead of Tactical, since it includes Scouts, who aren't Tactical anyway). In the 4e Dex, the White Scar bikers have Assault symbols, as do the Red Templars. If people have been failing to keep up with around 20 years of stuff being the same way, that is on them.

Look, there are a million valid reasons to complain about GW, but complaining about things being the way they always have been isn't really one of them (unless the complaint is stagnation, but in this case, that isn't what the complaint is).

So do we know if this new codex is just basic marines or is also Primaris Marines?

 Ahtman wrote:
So do we know if this new codex is just basic marines or is also Primaris Marines?

Yes we do. It is both. Primaris Marines are not a separate army.

I think my Dark Angels are set up with the old one side DA emblem the other side with the force org slot emblem.. As I've been buying stuff for BT, it looked like they have been using the 2x chapter emblems with marked rims at least since Index Astartes 2 if not earlier. TBH, I'm not really sure which I like better. I kinda feel like having 2x chapter markings with the role on a kneepad or shin plate plays more to the old imagery of Space Knights covered in livery.

With all these Chapter articles, a question came up for me as someone who hasn't bought into 8th edition (yet.. maybe). Detachments have to share the same keyword and all these chapters share multiple keywords. What's stopping someone from making all their bikers white scars for their rules, tacticals as ultramarines, imperial fist devs, etc? They'll obviously lose out on *chapter* keyword rerolls from characters but is there anything else they're losing out on? Any other downsides maybe regarding command points? Again, I'm working with the cliff notes version of the rules so apologies if I'm way off base with a clearly illegal army composition. Do you have to choose a single one based on an hq for the army?

 warboss wrote:
With all these Chapter articles, a question came up for me as someone who hasn't bought into 8th edition (yet.. maybe). Detachments have to share the same keyword and all these chapters share multiple keywords. What's stopping someone from making all their bikers white scars for their rules, tacticals as ultramarines, imperial fist devs, etc? They'll obviously lose out on *chapter* keyword rerolls from characters but is there anything else they're losing out on? Any other downsides maybe regarding command points? Again, I'm working with the cliff notes version of the rules so apologies if I'm way off base with a clearly illegal army composition. Do you have to choose a single one based on an hq for the army?

No restrictions or downside from what we know right now except for keywords abilities that target specific chapters.

 warboss wrote:
With all these Chapter articles, a question came up for me as someone who hasn't bought into 8th edition (yet.. maybe). Detachments have to share the same keyword and all these chapters share multiple keywords. What's stopping someone from making all their bikers white scars for their rules, tacticals as ultramarines, imperial fist devs, etc? They'll obviously lose out on *chapter* keyword rerolls from characters but is there anything else they're losing out on? Any other downsides maybe regarding command points? Again, I'm working with the cliff notes version of the rules so apologies if I'm way off base with a clearly illegal army composition. Do you have to choose a single one based on an hq for the army?

Currently, there is no rule that prevents people from doing what you say. But we have not yet seen the actual rules regarding the new marines OR the rules regarding chapter tactics, so that can (and is likely to) change. In the book for Traitor Legions, for example, detachments had to consist entirely of models from the same legion to benefit from the legion tactics. You could not have a single detachment of Night Lords bikers and Death Guard havocs. You COULD have two separate detachments of Night Lords and Death Guard, however. And since any slot can come on its own as an auxiliary detachment at the cost of one command point, you could have a mostly Ultramarines army with a single squad of, say, Salamanders Devastators.

 Colpicklejar wrote:

 warboss wrote:
With all these Chapter articles, a question came up for me as someone who hasn't bought into 8th edition (yet.. maybe). Detachments have to share the same keyword and all these chapters share multiple keywords. What's stopping someone from making all their bikers white scars for their rules, tacticals as ultramarines, imperial fist devs, etc? They'll obviously lose out on *chapter* keyword rerolls from characters but is there anything else they're losing out on? Any other downsides maybe regarding command points? Again, I'm working with the cliff notes version of the rules so apologies if I'm way off base with a clearly illegal army composition. Do you have to choose a single one based on an hq for the army?

Currently, there is no rule that prevents people from doing what you say. But we have not yet seen the actual rules regarding the new marines OR the rules regarding chapter tactics, so that can (and is likely to) change. In the book for Traitor Legions, for example, detachments had to consist entirely of models from the same legion to benefit from the legion tactics. You could not have a single detachment of Night Lords bikers and Death Guard havocs. You COULD have two separate detachments of Night Lords and Death Guard, however. And since any slot can come on its own as an auxiliary detachment at the cost of one command point, you could have a mostly Ultramarines army with a single squad of, say, Salamanders Devastators.

Rumor is to gain chapter tactics, all models in the detachment must share the same chapter keyword.

That would be the best way to do it IMO.

 JohnnyHell wrote:


For those interested in the reclassifying of the traditional squad role symbols

Bikes, speeders and centurions were just different ways of deploying assault squads.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 Colpicklejar wrote:

 warboss wrote:
With all these Chapter articles, a question came up for me as someone who hasn't bought into 8th edition (yet.. maybe). Detachments have to share the same keyword and all these chapters share multiple keywords. What's stopping someone from making all their bikers white scars for their rules, tacticals as ultramarines, imperial fist devs, etc? They'll obviously lose out on *chapter* keyword rerolls from characters but is there anything else they're losing out on? Any other downsides maybe regarding command points? Again, I'm working with the cliff notes version of the rules so apologies if I'm way off base with a clearly illegal army composition. Do you have to choose a single one based on an hq for the army?

Currently, there is no rule that prevents people from doing what you say. But we have not yet seen the actual rules regarding the new marines OR the rules regarding chapter tactics, so that can (and is likely to) change. In the book for Traitor Legions, for example, detachments had to consist entirely of models from the same legion to benefit from the legion tactics. You could not have a single detachment of Night Lords bikers and Death Guard havocs. You COULD have two separate detachments of Night Lords and Death Guard, however. And since any slot can come on its own as an auxiliary detachment at the cost of one command point, you could have a mostly Ultramarines army with a single squad of, say, Salamanders Devastators.

Rumor is to gain chapter tactics, all models in the detachment must share the same chapter keyword.

I wouldn't say that's a rumor. They flat out said that is the case on the Warhammer live stream.

Yep, however it has been worded differently a few times. Some have said "army" and one or two said "detachment". That's a pretty big difference. I have to imagine it's army or you really can abuse the hell out of it.

So if Primaris Marines are in this book, and I want to play a Blood Angels Primaris detachment, I would need the basic marine book and the eventual Blood Angels book?

Also, do we know what the Collectors and Primaris editions of the codex are going to contain?