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.

So if everyone has mark of slaanesh then noise marines are troops? Is that what it's saying?

demontalons wrote:
So if everyone has mark of slaanesh then noise marines are troops? Is that what it's saying?

No. They're saying if everyone is Emperor's Children, then Noise Marines may be taken as troops. Or, if everyone is World Eaters, then Berserkers may be taken as troops.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, its +1 to armor save when in cover.
I don't know why people keep thinking its a hit modifier. It's clearly stated in the rules for cover that it gives a bonus to armor.

Because it would make more sense to have it a hit modifier since cover blocking a shot or a stealth system hiding your position successfully means you're not actually hit... not that your actual armor is suddenly more effective at absorbing bullets.

Your conflating cover and concealment. Cover stops bullets, just like armor. Concealment makes you more difficult to see and as a result harder to hit, but not harder to hurt when you do get.

Cover inherently provides concealment since you're less likely to be spotted behind it. Before lecturing others, you should do some basic research next time.

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/cover-versus-concealment-knowing-difference-gunfight-pics/

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Cover inherently provides concealment since you're less likely to be spotted behind it. Before lecturing others, you should do some basic research next time.

I mean, if we are lecturing... Thats false. A sheet of bulletproof glass, or the popemobile, would be examples of cover that are not concealment.

 warboss wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, its +1 to armor save when in cover.
I don't know why people keep thinking its a hit modifier. It's clearly stated in the rules for cover that it gives a bonus to armor.

Because it would make more sense to have it a hit modifier since cover blocking a shot or a stealth system hiding your position successfully means you're not actually hit... not that your actual armor is suddenly more effective at absorbing bullets.

Your conflating cover and concealment. Cover stops bullets, just like armor. Concealment makes you more difficult to see and as a result harder to hit, but not harder to hurt when you do get.

Cover inherently provides concealment since you're less likely to be spotted behind it. Before lecturing others, you should do some basic research next time.

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/cover-versus-concealment-knowing-difference-gunfight-pics/

Man your right.

If only I had been an Airborne Infantryman for 5 years and did 2 tours in Iraq and my life had actually depended on knowing the difference between cover and concealment.

Yes cover CAN provide concealment but that can only occur BEFORE contact occurs. After contact has occured, which is what you were talking about, things become either cover or concealment, or at the very least that how you should view them.

Finally since the rule about terrain says it provides COVER not that it provides CONCEALMENT. It makes perfect sense to give the +1 to armor save rather then a -1 to hit.

Say, did Renegades get a relic?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Say, did Renegades get a relic?

Well, we have some non-legion specific relics if that's what you're looking for...

the_trooper wrote:
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/08/06/chaos-space-marines-8th-ed-codex-overview/

Are these the guys people always complain about drastically overstating how good things are? Because I laughed when he called the word bearer trait useful and the way they gushed over useless psychic abilities was borderline nauseating.

How is the trait not useful? You increase the chances of getting a successful charge. Raptors are going to love it.

Because it isn't that - it's re-roll Morale.
It's horrible. Small units don't care and it doesn't do enough to make large units not haemorrhage from heavy losses.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Because it isn't that - it's re-roll Morale.
It's horrible. Small units don't care and it doesn't do enough to make large units not haemorrhage from heavy losses.

Ah woops, somehow confused the word bearer trait with renegades trait.
Yeah, reroll morale isn't as strong as the other choices. Seems pretty situational.

SilverAlien wrote:

the_trooper wrote:
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/08/06/chaos-space-marines-8th-ed-codex-overview/

Are these the guys people always complain about drastically overstating how good things are? Because I laughed when he called the word bearer trait useful and the way they gushed over useless psychic abilities was borderline nauseating.

These are the "competitive tournament experts" GW brought in to playtest and balance 8th Edition.

To be fair they did bring in major tournament organizers in the us and uk. Those organizers just didn't always reach out to the super active players to test

Wonderwolf wrote:
These are the "competitive tournament experts" GW brought in to playtest and balance 8th Edition.

Hmmm, so either GW had a bunch of yes men incapable of calling out balance issues testing things, or these guys are just terrible at balance in general and their feedback directly led to many of the balance issues.

I'd say it's one or the other going by that review. The review itself is either spineless hype mongering or the words of people who shouldn't be allowed to offer feedback on balance ever.

SilverAlien wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:
These are the "competitive tournament experts" GW brought in to playtest and balance 8th Edition.

Hmmm, so either GW had a bunch of yes men incapable of calling out balance issues testing things, or these guys are just terrible at balance in general and their feedback directly led to many of the balance issues.

I'd say it's one or the other going by that review. The review itself is either spineless hype mongering or the words of people who shouldn't be allowed to offer feedback on balance ever.

Or option 3 is they had people playtest, gave feedback, and GW said "well that's all well and good but pass on those ideas, we will do our own!". Which as time goes on, is most likely what happened.

This lets them tell the public "sure, we had play testers try this out!!!" and not be lying.

Or people who have a better view of the whole rule set and GW's plan for it.

str00dles1 wrote:
Or option 3 is they had people playtest, gave feedback, and GW said "well that's all well and good but pass on those ideas, we will do our own!". Which as time goes on, is most likely what happened.

This lets them tell the public "sure, we had play testers try this out!!!" and not be lying.

Well.... no. We can tell from that review that at least one sample was totally unable to give useful feedback, and that alone means that any useful feedback GW had would be totally diluted. It's merely a question of were they incompetent or just total pushovers and yes men.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Or people who have a better view of the whole rule set and GW's plan for it.

Again, no. Unless the "whole rule set" includes overhauls to the basic rules, a lot of options are just garbage.

What you really want is a villain to blame. Someone to heap all of your scorn on.

Playtesting is a very complicated process - from my limited experience its a bit like the forum here just with less people.

Alot depends on how clear the goals are and the time that is set for achiveing them and if people accept them or have thier own goals that may or may not be compatable.

There are lots of moving parts - the game system itself, exploits, army composition, ease of use.

Usually something is sacrficed.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
What you really want is a villain to blame. Someone to heap all of your scorn on.

"GW is whatever we need it to be. Because GW is the table top company we deserve, but not the one we need right now. So, we'll complain about their products, because they can take it. Because they are not our hero. They are a producer of models. A writer of rules. A Games Workshop."

 Crimson Devil wrote:
What you really want is a villain to blame. Someone to heap all of your scorn on.

Nah I'm just enjoying mocking them. The fact this edition is at least kinda balanced proves gw is improving, even if that just means outsourcing balance. But I do think it'll take time for gw to learn who they should be listening primarily to, and clearly it isn't these guys lol.

and the re-roll of Moral isn't too bad, I tend to look at it this way, if a space marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on a 6 how would we respond to that?

that said I do agree death to the false emperor being IoM only is a bit of a pain there. I'm not a fan of rules that give bonuses vs a specific faction, as it can create an odd set up where depending on your local meta an army is much stronger or much weaker

BrianDavion wrote:
and the re-roll of Moral isn't too bad, I tend to look at it this way, if a space marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on a 6 how would we respond to that?

That's actually a 1 CP Stratagem for Space Marines.

I'm not kidding you.

Did the Khorne Daemon Prince get some buff. Especially considering those new juice psychic powers, The +1A seems quite poor. I mean, with the right power, he can buff himself with +2S abd +1A.

Trollbert wrote:
Did the Khorne Daemon Prince get some buff. Especially considering those new juice psychic powers, The +1A seems quite poor. I mean, with the right power, he can buff himself with +2S abd +1A.

Keep your silly magic away from mah Khorney Prince

BrianDavion wrote:
and the re-roll of Moral isn't too bad, I tend to look at it this way, if a space marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on a 6 how would we respond to that?

All Loyalist marines get that exact re-roll of morale in addition to their tactic. If a Space Marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on the 6 only against CSM, that would literally be an identical platform to Word Bearers...

The Word Bearers' trait is meant to show their unique fanaticism, but in terms of rules it is identical to that of every single chapter, who get bonuses in addition to their morale bonus. That is more than a little underwhelming.

 Marshal Loss wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
and the re-roll of Moral isn't too bad, I tend to look at it this way, if a space marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on a 6 how would we respond to that?

All Loyalist marines get that exact re-roll of morale in addition to their tactic. If a Space Marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on the 6 only against CSM, that would literally be an identical platform to Word Bearers...

And we get Death to the False Emperor in addition to that I guess. Getting more hits against half the game isn't exactly a bad thing, what with AM being stupid right now.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
and the re-roll of Moral isn't too bad, I tend to look at it this way, if a space marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on a 6 how would we respond to that?

All Loyalist marines get that exact re-roll of morale in addition to their tactic. If a Space Marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on the 6 only against CSM, that would literally be an identical platform to Word Bearers...

And we get Death to the False Emperor in addition to that I guess. Getting more hits against half the game isn't exactly a bad thing, what with AM being stupid right now.

While that is true, albeit irrelevant half the time, I'm talking about Word Bearers specifically, not the other Legions. The morale bonus is fluffy and fine but their fanaticism isn't exactly represented well when every single Loyalist has an identical bonus in addition to their tactic.

edit: for the record, it's not the end of the world, but on the whole I think it's extremely disappointing

The idea of a morale buff is good for Word Bearers, it just... isn't a very good buff. "Roll two take the better", or "+X to the leadership of all models" would have been more useful tactics.

Overall I think Word Bearers will still be in a decent spot though, thanks to their stratagem. We've already in the BAO that summoning is much stronger than many give it credit for with the top placing Chaos player having 600 summoning points.

 Marshal Loss wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
and the re-roll of Moral isn't too bad, I tend to look at it this way, if a space marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on a 6 how would we respond to that?

All Loyalist marines get that exact re-roll of morale in addition to their tactic. If a Space Marine chapter tactic was an additional attack on the 6 only against CSM, that would literally be an identical platform to Word Bearers...

And we get Death to the False Emperor in addition to that I guess. Getting more hits against half the game isn't exactly a bad thing, what with AM being stupid right now.

While that is true, albeit irrelevant half the time, I'm talking about Word Bearers specifically, not the other Legions. The morale bonus is fluffy and fine but their fanaticism isn't exactly represented well when every single Loyalist has an identical bonus in addition to their tactic.

edit: for the record, it's not the end of the world, but on the whole I think it's extremely disappointing

You can say that for about all of the traitor legions though. they either copied SM, or have a weaker version of what they already got.

Renegades have what World eaters should. 1 attack is crap compaired to getting to run AND charge, for the melee faction.