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.

What is the reasoning behind denying SW and BA sergeants power swords?

In fact, are they going to do the same mistake as they did for Captains in the index and not allow them access to unique Space Wolves gear? Are Primaris so snobby they won't accept the gift of a Frostblade from their parent chapter?

 Yodhrin wrote:
a HUEG company like GW trying to gut one of the best parts of the hobby to spite a few guys flogging bitz on ebay and a couple of random 3rd party miniature makers who have literally tens of customers each is hideously, stupendously, monumentally petty.

So how about this for a reason. Having parity between rules and box content is good. People like that. They expect it, because the vast majority of businesses out there promote it. It's in GW's interest to have customers that don't return to the store asking why their box of Marines and their Marine dex are not matching properly.

I think that may be a more relevant motivation compared to fething over a random guy with a garage spin caster.

And for God's sake, removing the option to have a combi weapon on your Marine model does nothing to discourage converting. Converting is about taking a stock model and making yours, making it look cool and different. People that care about converting will do it regardless of the amount of options available.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
What is the reasoning behind denying SW and BA sergeants power swords?

At this point I really cannot come up with anything beyond that they're just fething with us. Either the multipart Intercessor kit comes with both options and thus there is no sensible reason to prevent anyone from taking either, or it doesn't and the whole reasoning for limited option for Primaris characters falls flat. And while the chainsword certainly is cooler, the power sword is obviously better, and it seems really absurd to deny it from the two chapters well known for their close combat prowess.

In fact, are they going to do the same mistake as they did for Captains in the index and not allow them access to unique Space Wolves gear? Are Primaris so snobby they won't accept the gift of a Frostblade from their parent chapter?

Probably. They cannot take any of the good relics either.

 insaniak wrote:
The base could easily be left off and the hand swapped for a pistol hand.

Depending on the rules it has i might be chucking a chainsword on it. and use that hand on a death watch guy picking through some nid thing

also that base is going away for the imperial sector one

oh sweet lord the bits to the apothocary gun looks fiddlyer than a fiddler crab.

Warhams-77 wrote:
August WD preorder says the Index Astartes articles series is indeed back

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/White-Dwarf-August-2017-ENG

There are more (small) pages of the first three Codex books

Description

Is that salvation on the horizon for the Imperium? Why, yes – in the shape of a new issue of White Dwarf. And not only that, but with it a raft of new Primaris Space Marines. We’ve got your in-depth guide in Designers’ Notes, and – wait for it – the return of Index Astartes! After that, six of ’Eavy Metal’s finest tackle the new Space Marines in our stunning ’Eavy Metal Space Marine Challenge. But it’s not all Space Marines. The first of a new generation of codexes arrive with us this month, and we take a look at what’s in store in Damned Tomes & Ancient Pages. Elsewhere, Tactica Imperialis takes a look at stratagems, Pete Foley talks tournaments in the General’s Almanack before putting his money where his mouth is in this month’s battle report, Illuminations enters the Mortal Realms and much, much more.

This is - no joke - great news!

Love that series of articles.

The one on the Alpha Legion was great - and *should* have been the template for them going forward...

Still, can't wait to see what the new IA articles bring us!

Love the Apothecary. It is a bit weird that he can end up with two Absolver Pistols. I don't know which one I am going to give him. The Gene Seed is a neat touch. Overall, a very nice model. I can live without the Chaplain for now.

I am a little miffed about the different options for the different Intercessor Sergeants. Why?!

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Love the Apothecary. It is a bit weird that he can end up with two Absolver Pistols. I don't know which one I am going to give him. The Gene Seed is a neat touch. Overall, a very nice model. I can live without the Chaplain for now.

I am a little miffed about the different options for the different Intercessor Sergeants. Why?!

Did nobody else get the memo from Rowboat?? Sergeants are not to carry those lame things any longer. Direct from the boss, man.

 Crimson wrote:
I like the geneseed hand. It is quite gruesome.

It's a tyranid creature the size of man's head.
Not something that can be easily removed and stored by the dozens in belt flasks.

Wow... the new tank is AUD$140. It's $30 more than a Land Raider and just shy of the cost of a frickin' Baneblade.

Can't see the mirrors with all this smoke in the air...

Lemondish wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Love the Apothecary. It is a bit weird that he can end up with two Absolver Pistols. I don't know which one I am going to give him. The Gene Seed is a neat touch. Overall, a very nice model. I can live without the Chaplain for now.

I am a little miffed about the different options for the different Intercessor Sergeants. Why?!

Did nobody else get the memo from Rowboat?? Sergeants are not to carry those lame things any longer. Direct from the boss, man.

Space Wolves I can kind of understand. Maybe they will be getting some different options like a Frost Blade or Axe.

Also, why is no one talked about this little piece of art? I think I may have found a place for some of my Primaris stuff that I haven't found a use for in my Crimson Fists.

Is that a comic book piece or actually in the SM codex?

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Is that a comic book piece or actually in the SM codex?

It is from the Matched Play Points PDF.

it's a nice looking piece, wonder if it'll also be in the codex

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Is that a comic book piece or actually in the SM codex?

I wouldn't expect to see it until the Deathwatch Codex, as they have the silvered arm.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Is that a comic book piece or actually in the SM codex?

I wouldn't expect to see it until the Deathwatch Codex, as they have the silvered arm.

ohh yeah Never even noticed they're death watch

If only they updated the special issue ammo list to include Primaris bolt weapons

BrianDavion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Is that a comic book piece or actually in the SM codex?

I wouldn't expect to see it until the Deathwatch Codex, as they have the silvered arm.

ohh yeah Never even noticed they're death watch

That's why I brought it up!

GoatboyBeta wrote:
If only they updated the special issue ammo list to include Primaris bolt weapons

Or just merge specialist ammo into one bolt type like they did for Sternguard and Vindicare Snipers

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
If only they updated the special issue ammo list to include Primaris bolt weapons

Or just merge specialist ammo into one bolt type like they did for Sternguard and Vindicare Snipers

I think thney wanted to keep the specialist ammo for death watch as a faction flavor thing

Just noticed that venerable dreadnoughts can no longer replace their close combat weapon with a twin auto cannon or missile launcher, as stated in the 8th edition index... now the only option is twin missile launcher. WTF?

Were rifleman dreadnoughts a problem? Guess I just wasted my money on a set of twin auto-cannons from Forgeworld last month.

EDIT - I just realized that it's not that they got rid of dual twin-autocannons for dreadnoughts, but that they got rid of auto-cannons ENTIRELY (as well as win heavy flamers and twin heavy bolters...). Again, I must submit - WHAT THE FECK MANG?!

Kujo721 wrote:
Just noticed that venerable dreadnoughts can no longer replace their close combat weapon with a twin auto cannon or missile launcher, as stated in the 8th edition index... now the only option is twin missile launcher. WTF?

Were rifleman dreadnoughts a problem? Guess I just wasted my money on a set of twin auto-cannons from Forgeworld last month.

EDIT - I just realized that it's not that they got rid of dual twin-autocannons for dreadnoughts, but that they got rid of auto-cannons ENTIRELY (as well as win heavy flamers and twin heavy bolters...). Again, I must submit - WHAT THE FECK MANG?!

play it as a mortis dreadnought because that is essentially what it is now.

Kujo721 wrote:
Just noticed that venerable dreadnoughts can no longer replace their close combat weapon with a twin auto cannon or missile launcher, as stated in the 8th edition index... now the only option is twin missile launcher. WTF?

Were rifleman dreadnoughts a problem? Guess I just wasted my money on a set of twin auto-cannons from Forgeworld last month.

EDIT - I just realized that it's not that they got rid of dual twin-autocannons for dreadnoughts, but that they got rid of auto-cannons ENTIRELY (as well as win heavy flamers and twin heavy bolters...). Again, I must submit - WHAT THE FECK MANG?!

If only there was a Codex FAQ that covered this sort of thing.

Wait.

Would someone bring a wee youngling up to speed on what the return of Index Astartes might mean?

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

Kujo721 wrote:
Just noticed that venerable dreadnoughts can no longer replace their close combat weapon with a twin auto cannon or missile launcher, as stated in the 8th edition index... now the only option is twin missile launcher. WTF?

Were rifleman dreadnoughts a problem? Guess I just wasted my money on a set of twin auto-cannons from Forgeworld last month.

EDIT - I just realized that it's not that they got rid of dual twin-autocannons for dreadnoughts, but that they got rid of auto-cannons ENTIRELY (as well as win heavy flamers and twin heavy bolters...). Again, I must submit - WHAT THE FECK MANG?!

If only there was a Codex FAQ that covered this sort of thing.

Wait.

Sarcasm aside, that page is not part of the 'official' FAQ/Errata which you could point someone to/print off alongside your rulebook. Additionally, it does have the unfortunate paragraph of;

"Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army?
The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version."

which it could be argued, invalidates using options from the index for units with updated datasheets. I do realise they specifically call out Dreadnought weapon options in their example elsewhere, but there will be people arguing the opposite.

 Not-not-kenny wrote:
Would someone bring a wee youngling up to speed on what the return of Index Astartes might mean?

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Index_Astartes

The series fleshed out 40k's background and was always worth a read back then. It also came with Chapter/Legion-specific rules but I doubt this will come. Maybe for smaller chapters? We will see.

Index arsartes is an in depth back ground artical(s) on marines how there made. Organization, doctrins etc.

Warhams-77 wrote:
August WD preorder says the Index Astartes articles series is indeed back

That's good news.

Of course we'll have to see what's in it, but I used to like the old ones.

 Flood wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

Kujo721 wrote:
Just noticed that venerable dreadnoughts can no longer replace their close combat weapon with a twin auto cannon or missile launcher, as stated in the 8th edition index... now the only option is twin missile launcher. WTF?

Were rifleman dreadnoughts a problem? Guess I just wasted my money on a set of twin auto-cannons from Forgeworld last month.

EDIT - I just realized that it's not that they got rid of dual twin-autocannons for dreadnoughts, but that they got rid of auto-cannons ENTIRELY (as well as win heavy flamers and twin heavy bolters...). Again, I must submit - WHAT THE FECK MANG?!

If only there was a Codex FAQ that covered this sort of thing.

Wait.

Sarcasm aside, that page is not part of the 'official' FAQ/Errata which you could point someone to/print off alongside your rulebook. Additionally, it does have the unfortunate paragraph of;

"Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army?
The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version."

which it could be argued, invalidates using options from the index for units with updated datasheets. I do realise they specifically call out Dreadnought weapon options in their example elsewhere, but there will be people arguing the opposite.

"There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army."

So it's like the explicitly call out Dreadnought weapons as an example. And then state "In these instances" - giving a special permission, then instruct you to use the Index datasheet but the updated points values for the model in question.

So you'll be using the older datasheet for those specific-armed models - which may not have some of the perks and bonuses that the Codex datasheet has and may even have a different statline.

Nice way to skip the meat of the article and the most relevant bit there by the way.

My last line mentions I do realise the section you've repeated exists, however they do somewhat contradict themselves within the same article.

I have three auto-cannon dreads mate, I'm not wanting to ditch them anytime soon. All I'm saying it is reasonable to assume that a) not everyone will have read this one page of their community website and b) not everyone will agree due to GW's own (arguable) contradiction within their article.

I think everyone could agree it is not an elegant solution to dig out rulings on a secondary website in order to flick between two books to find out if a unit is viable for use.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wow... the new tank is AUD$140. It's $30 more than a Land Raider and just shy of the cost of a frickin' Baneblade.

Can't see the mirrors with all this smoke in the air...

For swedes the Repulsor is 600 SEK (92 AUD$), a Land Raider is 540 SEK (83 AUD$), and a Baneblade is 1000 SEK (153 AUD$)

I love Australia and New Zealand, but from a hobby perspective, I'm glad I don't live there.