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.

 ArtyomTrityak wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: warlord trait that makes him a sniper. Now add a command barge with a Gauss weapon and ouch. Not to shabby.

Careful....there'll be those arguing he's not actually using the weapon mounted on the Command Barge!

The Gauss isn't assault which is required by the trait but the tesla cannon is and that does make for some tasty sniping potential against things like warlocks, assassins or commissars.

It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.

So far it would seem that way. There will probably be some subtle tweaks to weapons (such as wraiths in Forgebane) but the codex will most likely as a whole remain the same. I don't see any of the Traits or Stratagems changing at all.

v0iddrgn wrote:
It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.

There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.

Aren73 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Destroyers are going to be horrific against Primaris.

Good AP, lots of shots, decent damage. Wang out a squad level re-roll, and you're deleting a unit each turn.

Can anyone used to 8th Ed provide a useful comment on whether S6 is particularly reliable firepower against Tanks?

Meet an AM army with a Baneblade and several LRBTs at the 2000 pt level.
All of them have T8, so S6 wounds on 5+. Not reliable enough.

Yes it wounds on a 5+, but with their "Destroyers kick ass now" stratagem, 6 destroyers still do 17.8 wounds to a 3+ sv tank or 14.8 wounds to a 2+ one and that's without an Overlord blessing them with a 2+ to hit. Surely that kills a LRBT, probably does severe damage to the Baneblade too. Sure Heavy Destroyers do it better, but normal destroyers can and will kill tanks now.

Here, it all depends whether you get first turn or not.
If there is sufficient terrain on the board so that you can hide the Destroyers, it should be fine.
Otherwise, the Baneblade with its twin heavy bolter sponsons (30 shots, S5, AP-1) and the LRBTs shooting twice will give you hard time.
Notice that the AM army described (which one of our buddies here plays) has not very many units:
1x Baneblade, 4x LRBTs, 3x30 Conscripts, 2x Ratlings, 2x Sentinals, and HQs

Of course, going up against guard if they get the first turn it is going to hurt. But firstly if it's a competitive setting, there
should definitely be enough terrain to hide a squad of destroyers and destroyer Lord.

Additionally, if he finishes deploying first, deploy your destroyers last and stick them as far away as physically possible. Or have them in reserves. Hell, maybe even hide them behind your own units like a monolith point is there will be ways of making sure they live

Strikes me as kind of pointless judging the value of Destroyers on whether you get first turn or not. Winner being determined by who gets first turn is 8th ed in a nutshell.

I think S6 on Destroyers isn't as important as the third shot, but it's a nice addition with so much T5 infantry running around. I just wouldn't go and rely on Destroyers for anti-tank. They're not bad and will help in a pinch, but they aren't all that great either.

 Geifer wrote:
Strikes me as kind of pointless judging the value of Destroyers on whether you get first turn or not. Winner being determined by who gets first turn is 8th ed in a nutshell.

I think S6 on Destroyers isn't as important as the third shot, but it's a nice addition with so much T5 infantry running around. I just wouldn't go and rely on Destroyers for anti-tank. They're not bad and will help in a pinch, but they aren't all that great either.

Sadly that's a lot of 8th, alpha strikes galore. But I agree mostly, the extra shot is better than the strength buff, though the strength definitely helps. Destroyers will never be dedicated anti-tank true, that's what Heavy Destroyers are for.

Wondering if we'll see any changes to the beta rules. So far it seems not but one can always hope.

 Sasori wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.

There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.

The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.

There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.

The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.

I will take that bet. 50$ wager that Forgebane rules will match the final rulebook.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.

There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.

The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.

I am really hoping that the same phenomenon applies to the Knight Armiger. A nice price cut between Forgebane and codex would be great. It has happened already for several units from Dark Imperium. Perhaps people complaining about the price of the Armiger could lead to a decrease in price for them in the codex.

At any rate, I am never trusting the rules content from the boxed sets ever again. Though hopefully I can at least hold off from buying the Necron Codex for a bit. Hopefully the Start Collecting includes the rules content for those units too. No codex and just some rules from the boxes and the War Com articles for me!

Novokh Dynasty Preview

Novokh:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/21/preview-the-novokh-dynasty-flayed-ones-and-canoptek-wraithsgw-homepage-post-2/

I think Forgebane has the Wraiths at D:1 still? So that'd be some evidence that Forgebane is actually an older version of the rules than the leak.

 Sasori wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.

There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.

The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.

I will take that bet. 50$ wager that Forgebane rules will match the final rulebook.

Someone is out 50 bones.

Beta leaks are the correct leaks are it seems.

Novokh Dynasty armies are ideal for Necrons players who want to take the fight directly to their enemy

Which is why half of our melee-units don't benefit from the trait.

 Sasori wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.

There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.

The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.

I will take that bet. 50$ wager that Forgebane rules will match the final rulebook.

Pay up. Beta codex is right. Forgebane is wrong. And hope was given to the owners of the Knight Armiger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MinscS2 wrote:

Novokh Dynasty armies are ideal for Necrons players who want to take the fight directly to their enemy

Which is why half of our melee-units don't benefit from the trait.

It would be decently cool for Triarch Praetorians. Too bad they don't get <Dynasty>.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.

There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.

The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.

I will take that bet. 50$ wager that Forgebane rules will match the final rulebook.

Someone is out 50 bones.

Sure looks like it, but I'll wait until both are out before I commit.

Yeah, with each passing day the official reveals suggest the Betadex is the final version. I doubt even the points values change at this point.

eldritchstormer wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Meet an AM army with a Baneblade and several LRBTs at the 2000 pt level.
All of them have T8, so S6 wounds on 5+. Not reliable enough.

Reroll wounds and multi damage is something tougher vehicles hate.

A baneblade hit with a mephtrit squad of 6 and the 1CP with MWBD becomes a reliable 16 wounds. Can you find 10 more wounds from the other 1700 points of your army to kill it? That is not shabby.

Importantly, with D3 damage for each wound, it doesn't take a massive quirk of chance to strip more than the 16.

 Sasori wrote:


I will take that bet. 50$ wager that Forgebane rules will match the final rulebook.

lol is this offer still open? No way they will match. Dark Imperium points were nearly all different from all other publications.

The "beta" codex from Special Wargamer (whose video is no longer on YouTube!) is much more likely to match, tho still not certain.

So the whole codex has been leaked. Pretty much. We know exactly what's going to be in it and the "beta" codex has only been labelled as "beta" because it's less of a crime to leak the beta rules than the actual thing? Or something like that?

Sweet! Whip Coils are now a direct upgrade. Now I don't feel so dumb for building my Wraiths with them.

 EnTyme wrote:
Sweet! Whip Coils are now a direct upgrade. Now I don't feel so dumb for building my Wraiths with them.

But now Wraiths get a severe pt upgrade (55 pts, +17).

 EnTyme wrote:
Sweet! Whip Coils are now a direct upgrade. Now I don't feel so dumb for building my Wraiths with them.

Can't say I'm super happy about them having a functionally useless ability when I slightly sacrified asthetics to give my wraiths one trimmed down whip coil each so they could hit first before.

Honestly they look best with regular claws because the whip coils have very fixed poses and are hard to transport.

Aren73 wrote:
So the whole codex has been leaked. Pretty much. We know exactly what's going to be in it and the "beta" codex has only been labelled as "beta" because it's less of a crime to leak the beta rules than the actual thing? Or something like that?

Close. Super Wargamer published his copy to YouTube (no longer up there but republished many other places.) His was a copy for playtesters (hence the "beta".) It's possible that some minor changes were made for the final codex after the playtesters got theirs. It's also possible that Super Wargamer's playtester copy is identical to the final printed codex.

Except that bothers me. Us wargamers are usually an opinionated lot and no one is 100% happy with any codex. Given half a chance any of us would tweak something even if just a little bit.

Yet it looks like the playtesters were given the playtest version of the codex, essentially said: "Hey, this is so cool everything is fine Games Workshop change NOTHING about this codex PLEASE" and then GW immediately sent it to print.

Not saying the codex is bad, but I refuse to believe the playtesters didn't change anything about the playtest version of the book. Isn't that what testing is for?

Aren73 wrote:
Except that bothers me. Us wargamers are usually an opinionated lot and no one is 100% happy with any codex. Given half a chance any of us would tweak something even if just a little bit.

Yet it looks like the playtesters were given the playtest version of the codex, essentially said: "Hey, this is so cool everything is fine Games Workshop change NOTHING about this codex PLEASE" and then GW immediately sent it to print.

Not saying the codex is bad, but I refuse to believe the playtesters didn't change anything about the playtest version of the book. Isn't that what testing is for?

You can refuse to believe all you want but every day it shows nothing's been changed.

I believe the YouTube video leak said in the description that the points might not be finalised?

I'm expecting a minor scattershot of small differences when we see the points page, not really expecting much other change though.