Space Marines - Upcoming Releases [News: FAQ August 10th]

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.

**frozenwastes**

casvalremdeikun wrote:
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.

2nd edition as well.

Spoiler:

They just changed the name. The badges just tell you what type of squad the marine in question is from. Now it's more by role, which is sort of what those squad types were in the first place.

**casvalremdeikun**

frozenwastes wrote:
casvalremdeikun wrote:
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.

2nd edition as well.

Spoiler:

They just changed the name. The badges just tell you what type of squad the marine in question is from. Now it's more by role, which is sort of what those squad types were in the first place.

I don't have that codex, so I didn't know for sure. Thanks!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AverageBoss wrote:
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?

The Blood Angels codex will have the rules for Primaris Space Marines in it much the same way it has the rules for Tactical Squads, Land Speeders, Rhinos, etc.

**BrianDavion**

Elbows wrote:
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.

I doubt it'll be per army. likely per detachment, as early as 6th edition space marines could "ally with themselves"

**Hanskrampf**

BrianDavion wrote:
Elbows wrote:
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.

I doubt it'll be per army. likely per detachment, as early as 6th edition space marines could "ally with themselves"

Yeah, army-wide would be stupid.
Want an Inquisitor? Well, no Chapter Tactics for you.

**insaniak**

casvalremdeikun wrote:

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).

I'm not really sure what complaints you're talking about, to be honest. All I saw was someone mentioning that the names had changed.

**JohnnyHell**

I don't think anyone said the badges have changed.

The names sure have. Tactical, Assault and Devastator have long been associated with those symbols. "These new names aren't new" - yeah they are. It's kinda cool.

**BrianDavion**

JohnnyHell wrote:
I don't think anyone said the badges have changed.

The names sure have. Tactical, Assault and Devastator have long been associated with those symbols. "These new names aren't new" - yeah they are. It's kinda cool.

I imagine it's really more a clarification of something thats de facto been the case for awhile then something new

**JohnnyHell**

BrianDavion wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
I don't think anyone said the badges have changed.

The names sure have. Tactical, Assault and Devastator have long been associated with those symbols. "These new names aren't new" - yeah they are. It's kinda cool.

I imagine it's really more a clarification of something thats de facto been the case for awhile then something new

The names are literally new. What is to discuss?

**Fayric**

Consider GW use those symbols for the battlefield roles as general symbols for force organisation in the game, not just followers of the Codex Astartes.
It makes sense to give them neutral definitions that better describe their battlefield functions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AverageBoss wrote:
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?

As a non codex marine chapter you will probably need the vanilla dex for a few months until you (we) get our own.
Or you just use the rules that come in the boxes for each unit (just as is with the captain, librarian and reivers right now) and hope GW publish a PDF describing the minor changes and points you need for your chapter.

**nerdfest09**

Carnikang wrote:
ASTERION MOLOC WEEPS TEARS OF BLOOD FOR NO ANTI-POWER ARMOR TACTICS.

Man I really hope Forgeworld does their Chapter Tactics...

If we don't get some decent traits to signify our chapter's strength and enjoyment of fighting marines and equally battle worthy foes i'll weep tears of blood!

if FW are going to do traits for the armies they support do we think it will be piecemeal or just offered to us online? I have started a Minotaurs force recently and the fluff and fury of them is what drew me in, I was a bit bummed I bought Fall of Orpheus for the rules and before I got it in the post it was null and void

**str00dles1**

AverageBoss wrote:
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?

No one knows, as unknown when Blood angels will be released. Im sure wed find out closer to that, as other people would message them on FB and ask. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you did need both.

Collectors has nothing but more money wasted on the same product everyone else will have.

**Bull0**

There's bound to be some primaris love in the eventual blood angel book but whether it'll be a new unit, a subset of the existing ones or all the existing ones, who can say? They do typically get a bit shafted (I want centurions, damn it) but GW still want to sell these models and they've painted up blood angel intercessors in the studio.

**theharrower**

Bull0 wrote:
There's bound to be some primaris love in the eventual blood angel book but whether it'll be a new unit, a subset of the existing ones or all the existing ones, who can say? They do typically get a bit shafted (I want centurions, damn it) but GW still want to sell these models and they've painted up blood angel intercessors in the studio.

The minis for Centurions are gross. Vanilla Marines can keep them. We'll be fine with Aggressors and I'm hoping for Primaris Death Company.

**BrotherGecko**

Bull0 wrote:
There's bound to be some primaris love in the eventual blood angel book but whether it'll be a new unit, a subset of the existing ones or all the existing ones, who can say? They do typically get a bit shafted (I want centurions, damn it) but GW still want to sell these models and they've painted up blood angel intercessors in the studio.

Personally I suspect generic Primaris units that are themed to the last two space marine army colors, which is also why I suspect we won't see BA/DA codexes until next year. I think if I had to guess for BA we will see a CCW version of the Inceptor (if one isn't in the multi-part box) and either a CCW version of the Aggressors or a CCW version of the Intercessors...or or an all new CCW toting new Primaris unit...or or or a fast moving Primaris vehicle. For DA I would hazard a guess at Primaris jetbikes/bikers and either true Primaris Terminators or a new shooty style Primaris squad or vehicle.

I don't see chapter specific Primaris units at all and BA/DA are not going to get new Astartes units so either those codexes will get nothing new at all or they will be generic Primaris units that theme to BA/DA.

This is my wild speculation.

**JohnnyHell**

Upgrade kits are a thing. Easy enough to bung in a sprue and rebox for a vampire/cloaky/wolfy Codex release.

**str00dles1**

theharrower wrote:
Bull0 wrote:
There's bound to be some primaris love in the eventual blood angel book but whether it'll be a new unit, a subset of the existing ones or all the existing ones, who can say? They do typically get a bit shafted (I want centurions, damn it) but GW still want to sell these models and they've painted up blood angel intercessors in the studio.

The minis for Centurions are gross. Vanilla Marines can keep them. We'll be fine with Aggressors and I'm hoping for Primaris Death Company.

Considering it is seen as Cawl has fixed the black rage in primaris (hasn't happened in 100 years) I doubt you will see primaris death company.

**casvalremdeikun**

JohnnyHell wrote:
Upgrade kits are a thing. Easy enough to bung in a sprue and rebox for a vampire/cloaky/wolfy Codex release.

If they sprue the kits appropriately, they could probably swap out one entire sprue for a chapter appropriate sprue.

**Bull0**

theharrower wrote:
Bull0 wrote:
There's bound to be some primaris love in the eventual blood angel book but whether it'll be a new unit, a subset of the existing ones or all the existing ones, who can say? They do typically get a bit shafted (I want centurions, damn it) but GW still want to sell these models and they've painted up blood angel intercessors in the studio.

The minis for Centurions are gross. Vanilla Marines can keep them. We'll be fine with Aggressors and I'm hoping for Primaris Death Company.

Subjective, I think there's potential there to make cool models and they are pretty effective on the tabletop. I would be disappointed if they just did new Death Company tbh, cop out

**theharrower**

str00dles1 wrote:
theharrower wrote:
Bull0 wrote:
There's bound to be some primaris love in the eventual blood angel book but whether it'll be a new unit, a subset of the existing ones or all the existing ones, who can say? They do typically get a bit shafted (I want centurions, damn it) but GW still want to sell these models and they've painted up blood angel intercessors in the studio.

The minis for Centurions are gross. Vanilla Marines can keep them. We'll be fine with Aggressors and I'm hoping for Primaris Death Company.

Considering it is seen as Cawl has fixed the black rage in primaris (hasn't happened in 100 years) I doubt you will see primaris death company.

He didn't fix Black Rage. I haven't read the book, but I thought the quote from Cawl about Space Wolves and Blood Angels that I read was there were still some anomalies with their gene seed. If being upgraded to a Primaris Marine cures the Black Rage, all of the Blood Angels would undergo that and Death Company wouldn't exist. No way GW squats the Death Company.

**aracersss**

New chapter focus

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/20/chapter-focus-iron-hands-july20gw-homepage-post-3/

Chapter Focus: Iron Hands

Among the Space Marines, few are as relentless or as ruthless as the Iron Hands. Where others see gene-crafted physical perfection, the Iron Hands see only the weakness of the flesh, augmenting their bodies with cybernetics and making heavy use of tanks. The ultimate fate for an Iron Hand is interment in a Dreadnought and an eternity of war as a living machine.

The Iron Hands Chapter Tactic, The Flesh Is Weak, reflects both the relentless spirit and augmented bodies of these hardy warriors, allowing them to shrug off wounds and making them exceptionally difficult to kill. Multi-wound models like Terminators are going to be nigh-impossible to shift, while, appropriate to their background, Iron Hands Dreadnoughts of all types are going to be unstoppable. One of the deadliest units available to the Iron Hands is the Venerable Dreadnought, who can combine The Flesh Is Weak with Unyielding Ancient to wade through even the heaviest of fire.

While Chapter Tactics don’t usually apply to Vehicles, Iron Hands armies will be able to take full advantage of their chapter armoury thanks to Stratagems. As well as stratagems available to all Space Marine armies like Killshot and Armour of Contempt, the Iron Hands’ Machine Empathy lets vehicles move and shoot without penalties to hit on their Heavy weapons and even advance and shoot without penalties for their Assault weapons. Even the humble Razorback can be transformed into a deadly forward assault tank, although the biggest beneficiary of this tactic will again likely be Dreadnoughts. An Iron Hands Redemptor Dreadnought armed with a heavy onslaught gatling cannon will be able to move on the foe with terrifying speed while maintaining a steady rate of accurate fire – a perfect demonstration of the weakness of flesh!

It’s not all about machines though. In the last edition, melee Iron Hands characters were some of the best in the game, and that’s still true, as their Warlord Trait and Relic allow you to make some really lethal combatants, gaining extra attacks from Merciless Logic and cutting down the foe with The Axe of Medusa.

The Iron Hands are the chapter for commanders who want to demonstrate the power of the machine with unstoppable columns of tanks, troops and Dreadnoughts. Make sure to come back tomorrow for our final Chapter previews, where we’ll be looking at the dauntless descendants of Dorn with the Imperial Fists, Crimson Fists and Black Templars.

**endlesswaltz123**

I think it's safe to say nothing is set in stone any more, and I expect the background/setting/fluff to be flexible and ever expanding from this edition forth. Primaris marines may have become death company, it just could have happened the other side of the rift so word of it happening hasn't got back yet, or it just hasn't happened yet[i][u], or Cawl hasn't seen it happen as it typically only happens on the eve of battle that a blood angel will fall... They aren't on the eve of battle in their growth tanks.

The option to upgrade some death company members to primaris marines would be cool, 1 per 5 could be upgraded for example, mixed equipment death company would be cool as well, mixed jump and non jump pack in a unit like deathwatch, death company terminators etc etc.

**Yonasu**

So apparently buffs stack now, or is it just FNP-like ones? How... i mean... what? Now i dont understand anything, how do the "no stacking" rules even work?

**endlesswaltz123**

Yonasu wrote:
So apparently buffs stack now, or is it just FNP-like ones? How... i mean... what? Now i dont understand anything, how do the "no stacking" rules even work?

I don't think they stack, like previously where if you had multiple effects that gave FNP would increase the saving throw (5+ becoming a 4+), you now get 2 rolls at 6+.

**nekooni**

Yonasu wrote:
So apparently buffs stack now, or is it just FNP-like ones? How... i mean... what? Now i dont understand anything, how do the "no stacking" rules even work?

It's not FNP. They're different rules that allow you to roll a die. You don't get a 5+ "FNP", you get two 6+ rolls instead. Since they do not modify anything but are entirely independent, they "stack".

**Yonasu**

Makes perfect sense, im sure no kids will have this discussion ad nauseam...

**CthuluIsSpy**

Fayric wrote:
Consider GW use those symbols for the battlefield roles as general symbols for force organisation in the game, not just followers of the Codex Astartes.
It makes sense to give them neutral definitions that better describe their battlefield functions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AverageBoss wrote:
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?

As a non codex marine chapter you will probably need the vanilla dex for a few months until you (we) get our own.
Or you just use the rules that come in the boxes for each unit (just as is with the captain, librarian and reivers right now) and hope GW publish a PDF describing the minor changes and points you need for your chapter.

Actually, for the codex FAQ I believe they said that you just need to use the index for BA until their dedicated codex comes out.

**Cephalobeard**

GW Appears to have given out early access copies of the Codex, so here' hoping we get some leaks soon.

**Ghaz**

Hanskrampf wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Elbows wrote:
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.

I doubt it'll be per army. likely per detachment, as early as 6th edition space marines could "ally with themselves"

Yeah, army-wide would be stupid.
Want an Inquisitor? Well, no Chapter Tactics for you.

From Facebook:

<REDACTED> Are there downsides to chapter tactics and strategems? Or are they like formations giving a boost to your army at no point cost?

<WARHAMMER 40,000> The downside is simply that your whole army must be the same chapter and you can;t have allies from outside the chapter in the same detachment.

<REDACTED> Warhammer 40,000 How does that work with armies that only really function as allies?

Do inquisition players (for instance) drastically gimp any detachment of marines that they join by making them non-compliant?

<WARHAMMER 40,000> Indeed, they do. You can take Inquisition no problem, but they'll have to be part of a different detachment...

**Slayer-Fan123**

Cephalobeard wrote:
GW Appears to have given out early access copies of the Codex, so here' hoping we get some leaks soon.

Where did you hear this?

**CthuluIsSpy**

Aren't those two statements contradictory?

First Statement - same chapter army wide to receive buffs

Second Statement - same chapter detachment wide to receive buffs

Did I miss something?