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.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Geifer wrote:


Any solid rumors flying around that we'll actually get a new codex?

Seems strange timing if you ask me. While there are new models that need new or updated data sheets, it seems certain with Slaanesh coming this year that Emperor's Children get a book of their own, and it would make sense to then give World Eaters one as well so that all the cult legions got kicked out of the codex. It would makes to only then give us a new codex so as not to have those two legions included in the generic codex, or their status in question until they get their own books.

Ah, right. I posted the exact wording over on B&C rather than here but the gist is that the CSM box and codex are both looking to be replaced.

"Codex: Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Space Marine Squad are now removed from the B200b range and are no longer subject to compulsory re-order"

Interesting. Thanks.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Geifer wrote:


Any solid rumors flying around that we'll actually get a new codex?

Seems strange timing if you ask me. While there are new models that need new or updated data sheets, it seems certain with Slaanesh coming this year that Emperor's Children get a book of their own, and it would make sense to then give World Eaters one as well so that all the cult legions got kicked out of the codex. It would makes to only then give us a new codex so as not to have those two legions included in the generic codex, or their status in question until they get their own books.

Ah, right. I posted the exact wording over on B&C rather than here but the gist is that the CSM box and codex are both looking to be replaced.

"Codex: Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Space Marine Squad are now removed from the B200b range and are no longer subject to compulsory re-order"

Is this also true for the Space Marine codex?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I know you put a smiley faces are the WAAC comment, but I don't think it's entirely the competitive mindset.

I hate the idea of an "Imperial" army that is Knights, the Loyal 32, and for some inexplicable reason 3 Custodes HQs running around smashing things, or two Blood Angel Captains with some minimal Scouts. I understand that the fluff and the rules often run contrary to one another (a major failing of 40K that has been around since its inception yet they seem oblivious too or just simply unwilling to try and fix), but as someone who has existed in both the competitive and fluff-bunny worlds, such armies just annoy me because the rules allow it to exist in the first place. They just don't make sense conceptually.

There's something quite amusing about two Blood Angel captains discussing options for dealing with a Chaos/Xenos incursion.
"Death company, Tacticals, Sanguinary Guard, perhaps the Primaris legions, or our 100 battle relic Landraiders and Vindicators brother?"
'Hah, you jest brother Smashfaciel, I think this is another job for Guardsman Chaff and his 31 recruits and of course, the Knights McStompyface."
"Of course, I'll send a note to Terra asking to downsize the chapter immediately; we can split the savings and buy even bigger hammers!"
"Excellent, but shall you or I lead?"
"Hah, another witty barb brother; I think this battle requires the delicate touch of Sgt. Chaff..."

I do actually miss the force org. chart.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

happy_inquisitor wrote:


Ah, right. I posted the exact wording over on B&C rather than here but the gist is that the CSM box and codex are both looking to be replaced.

"Codex: Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Space Marine Squad are now removed from the B200b range and are no longer subject to compulsory re-order"

Is this also true for the Space Marine codex?

I have no rumour of that.

Here's another. Not mine, found it on FB

Vanguard rules:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/07/mar-7-shadowspear-focus-vanguard-rulesgw-homepage-post-3/

With warlord traits:

Sounds like points and detachment rules coming tomorrow.

Both of those are pretty good. Target Priority on a Captain babysitting some Eliminators equals hits on 2s and MW on 6s. Not bad. Not bad at all.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Both of those are pretty good. Target Priority on a Captain babysitting some Eliminators equals hits on 2s and MW on 6s. Not bad. Not bad at all.

I don't see any restriction on what he can buff with that, so you could have him babysitting a unit of hellblasters surely?

I'm not sure if redeploying 3 units is worth a warlord trait. It's an awesome ability but I just don't think it's worth giving up a warlord trait.

The +1 to hit one though. That's juicy. If it can be used by some DA (hopefully with the <chapter> key word) that will really help my jerks blowing up all over the place...

Not Online!!! wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I don't think we should hate on cultists, almost every 40k novel I've read there are cultists or cultist equivalents fighting alongside the CSM. If the goal is to make CSM the choice over Cultists, it should probably take the form of Stratagems that only effect Heretic Astartes.

One issue, where do you get the required cp from?
If you don't pull a GSC and f.e lower cp cost for specific csm stratagems if you target csm, you will be forced even more into cultists to get cp.

This is part of why I think the problem with CSM, is a lack of a cohesive vision for the army. Other armies have these thematic cores that elevate and drive the play style of the army. CSM and Loyalist marines are more like big swiss army knives where GW has largely left the direction of the army to the player. -So instead of having a bunch of rules synnergizing towards a particular play style for the army, it just means I get to choose which flavor of the army will struggle against those that do.

Its not about stopping people from taking cultists, its about giving people more of a reason to take CSM and making them at least as viable as building an army around cultists. Just as easy as stratagems, how about rules that let them use cultists as "human shields"; something like the rules for targeting characters. That would help boost survivability; it would just need to be specific to particular CSM units.

bananathug wrote:
I'm not sure if redeploying 3 units is worth a warlord trait. It's an awesome ability but I just don't think it's worth giving up a warlord trait.

The +1 to hit one though. That's juicy. If it can be used by some DA (hopefully with the <chapter> key word) that will really help my jerks blowing up all over the place...

How is helping one unit a turn better than frickin redeployment, especially with these armies with crazy mobility?

yea it says chapter unit so anything!
heavy bolter centurions, helblasters, predators the lot

 Latro_ wrote:
yea it says chapter unit so anything!
heavy bolter centurions, helblasters, predators the lot

Looks like Phobos Captain's back on the menu boys

IanVanCheese wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Both of those are pretty good. Target Priority on a Captain babysitting some Eliminators equals hits on 2s and MW on 6s. Not bad. Not bad at all.

I don't see any restriction on what he can buff with that, so you could have him babysitting a unit of hellblasters surely?

Yeah it's any <chapter> unit so you can pick whatever you like.

Personally i'm looking at my 40 shot Intercessor unit hitting on 2's, re-rolling 1's as a tasty starting point.

Alternatively it could go on a Contemptor Dread and hit those -2 Aeldari flyers on 3's.

IanVanCheese wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Both of those are pretty good. Target Priority on a Captain babysitting some Eliminators equals hits on 2s and MW on 6s. Not bad. Not bad at all.

I don't see any restriction on what he can buff with that, so you could have him babysitting a unit of hellblasters surely?

Absolutely you could.

I feel cheated. The Chaos Warlord Traits were pretty lame compared to the Loyalist ones.

Any confirmation on whether these WL traits are available to any Astartes WL, or must they have the VANGUARD or PHOBOS keyword?

-

 Galef wrote:
Any confirmation on whether these WL traits are available to any Astartes WL, or must they have the VANGUARD or PHOBOS keyword?

-

Nothing yet, it'll all depend on the wording in the mini-dex's i guess.

The articles allude that you need a Vanguard Warlord or a Daemonkin Warlord for the new traits.

 Redemption wrote:
The articles allude that you need a Vanguard Warlord or a Daemonkin Warlord for the new traits.

That's fine, a Vanguard captain is a better baby sitter anyway, as he does some extra deepstrike denying (unless he's randomly over-costed).

Damn, that Target Priority trait is probably reason enough to take the Phobos Captain.

It's a crime that the Vanguard Librarian's best powers are limited to Phobos units. Shrouding combined with Target Priority would be amazing on a full squad of Hellblasters.

I'm wondering if that's why they used the Phobos keyword for Obfuscation, or whatever the discipline is called.

Prevents a sort of internal soup, where rather than a themed look to the force, it's just a hodge podge of armour types and weapons that gel sickeningly well together? Helps to restrain Codex creep.

Or put Target Priority on the Librarian that won't be shooting anyway...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'm wondering if that's why they used the Phobos keyword for Obfuscation, or whatever the discipline is called.

Prevents a sort of internal soup, where rather than a themed look to the force, it's just a hodge podge of armour types and weapons that gel sickeningly well together? Helps to restrain Codex creep.

Probably, just weird they'd restrict internal soup more than external. Surely an army of hodgepodge marine armour types is better than marines, guard and knights?

The Vanguard article's cover image shows a good side-view of a Suppressor. No additional jump pack/turbine hiding there, just as people assumed. Those are really weird models.

Did the guy just get Prescience as a warlord trait for free every turn?

 Binabik15 wrote:
The Vanguard article's cover image shows a good side-view of a Suppressor. No additional jump pack/turbine hiding there, just as people assumed. Those are really weird models.

I'm guessing the 'jump pack' are the extra thruster pods on top of the backpack and on the back of the boots.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Did the guy just get Prescience as a warlord trait for free every turn?

They did. Now the question is: who can have it? I can't see an obvious keyword on the shadowspear characters that would let them take these traits. Phobos, maybe?

It certainly looks as if you can have a captain give a repulsor +1 to hit. Actually that might not be the best option, as they tend to split their fire all over the place. You can also use it to make hellblasters immune to overheating.

Far from being good on a captain, I think that trait actually means you don't need a captain. Stick it on a lieutenant instead. The trait alone means plasma can't overheat.

I think this might be good with my crimson fists. I could get suppressors seriously accurate if I combined this and the stratagem for +1 to hit vs characters. Might even hit some eldar!

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Or put Target Priority on the Librarian that won't be shooting anyway...

Yup, I was thinking 10 man Infiltrator squad with Target Priority Librarian to trigger more 6s while also empowering them with to hit rerolls. Pity mini-apothecary can't heal characters, tho.