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.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Some of us *liked* that you had Marines, who could kit out differently for different roles.

The Cherub and Primaris and now the Havoc changes - GW is removing one of my favorite things about Marines.

And how are they still not being kitted out for different roles? The heavy weapons you take have the actual roles, not the Marines themselves. Ergo, the non-weaponry warhead simply makes them better at it.

This really is complaining for the sake of complaining.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

And you can still do the same thing, but with Chosen!

The chosen guys I already have...

Rule of 3 is a bitch.

Whatever, I'll just ask my group if I can use the old havoc datasheet, it's practically worse anyway.

Well if you needed more than 3 squads of plasma toters, there's other means to D2 weaponry. Obliterators are still good.

You're assuming I was taking plasma? Nah, I load those boys up with bolt pistols and power axes.

Which begs the question of why? Berserker Marines are only a point more...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
"And how are they still not being kitted out for different roles?"
I suppose they still are, like how a Rhino and a Land Raider are kitted for different roles. Or how an Ork Boy and a Fire Warrior are kitted for different roles.

"The heavy weapons you take have the actual roles, not the Marines themselves."
The Lascannon makes you T5? But only sometimes? And you can fire it on the move, but only sometimes?

"Ergo, the non-weaponry warhead simply makes them better at it. "
Then why does the same Marine, with the same Wargear, have different rules just because a different icon is painted on his right shoulderpad? The specific point is I liked the fluff where a Tac Marine with a Heavy had the exact same loadout as a Dev with a Heavy.

"This really is complaining for the sake of complaining. "
I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to like the things I like.

You clearly don't have a grasp on this. Okay then.

The Devastators and Havocs carry heavy weapons, but the ROLE is always going to be based around the weapon they're taking and how effective they are at lugging it around. Due to the special of T5/Relentless or Signum/Cherub, they do the latter part more effectively.

So yeah, you're complaining for the sake of complaining that Chaos Marines have something nice. Not that I expected much from Eldar players anyway.

Fundamentally this sounds like GW is finally admitting that Old Marines as per the V1 codex's didn't cut it in 8th edition.

It seems like they looked at what worked deathguard and decided that T5 was needed to make marines at 20+ points per model less of a autoloose choice.

The Chaincannon is just admiting that heavy bolters suck, this thinm is probably still not anti hoard enough and it too Generalist.
It probably should have been S4 but who knows why GW went with S5.

The move and fire without penalty who knows, it makes them playable but yes it makes no sence the arbitrary lines on who or what gets to move and shoot without penalty.

Which begs the question of why? Berserker Marines are only a point more...

I'm not playing a khornate army, so I don't take units that are forced to khorne.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Fundamentally this sounds like GW is finally admitting that Old Marines as per the V1 codex's didn't cut it in 8th edition.

It seems like they looked at what worked deathguard and decided that T5 was needed to make marines at 20+ points per model less of a autoloose choice.

The Chaincannon is just admiting that heavy bolters suck, this thinm is probably still not anti hoard enough and it too Generalist.
It probably should have been S4 but who knows why GW went with S5.

The move and fire without penalty who knows, it makes them playable but yes it makes no sence the arbitrary lines on who or what gets to move and shoot without penalty.

Yeah, S4 does a lot more for it to make it not do better against marines than guard.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Which begs the question of why? Berserker Marines are only a point more...

I'm not playing a khornate army, so I don't take units that are forced to khorne.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Fundamentally this sounds like GW is finally admitting that Old Marines as per the V1 codex's didn't cut it in 8th edition.

It seems like they looked at what worked deathguard and decided that T5 was needed to make marines at 20+ points per model less of a autoloose choice.

The Chaincannon is just admiting that heavy bolters suck, this thinm is probably still not anti hoard enough and it too Generalist.
It probably should have been S4 but who knows why GW went with S5.

The move and fire without penalty who knows, it makes them playable but yes it makes no sence the arbitrary lines on who or what gets to move and shoot without penalty.

Yeah, S4 does a lot more for it to make it not do better against marines than guard.

Well unless you're specifically playing Emperor's Children, I think you'll be just fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Fundamentally this sounds like GW is finally admitting that Old Marines as per the V1 codex's didn't cut it in 8th edition.

It seems like they looked at what worked deathguard and decided that T5 was needed to make marines at 20+ points per model less of a autoloose choice.

The Chaincannon is just admiting that heavy bolters suck, this thinm is probably still not anti hoard enough and it too Generalist.
It probably should have been S4 but who knows why GW went with S5.

The move and fire without penalty who knows, it makes them playable but yes it makes no sence the arbitrary lines on who or what gets to move and shoot without penalty.

You gotta think of it like this.

1 Rotor Cannon has two more shots. 2 Heavy Bolters have 2 less shots but an extra 12" of range.

Heavy Bolters are generally outclassed by Autocannons though so...

I hate to sound like a boring record here, but aren't these basically evil spikey aggressors?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I hate to sound like a boring record here, but aren't these basically evil spikey aggressors?

They can use a rhino, so no, also 24 inch is more than agressors range of 18

I can see a 5 man Chaincannon squad in a rhino having some nasty potential.

"The Devastators and Havocs carry heavy weapons, but the ROLE is always going to be based around the weapon they're taking and how effective they are at lugging it around. Due to the special of T5/Relentless or Signum/Cherub, they do the latter part more effectively. "
So a Tac squad holed up in a building consisting of 4 bolter-doods and a Lascannon are going to perform differently than the same 5 guys last week when they were a Dev squad with 4 bolter-doods and a Lascannon? In other words, the same guys, the same gear, and the same role? Same with Chaos Marine/Havoks, of course.

"So yeah, you're complaining for the sake of complaining that Chaos Marines have something nice."
Not at all. Chaos Marines should have something nice. But they shouldn't reinvent what Marines are to make it happen.

"Not that I expected much from Eldar players anyway."
I get that it's a cardinal sin to you to enjoy Eldar, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to also like my Marines.

I want the basic Marine units (Tac, Dev, ASM, and their counterpoints) to be viable. But I want them to still be the basic Marine units I know and love. This "Havoks get +1T/Relentless" style rule means they're not basic Marine units anymore.

And, believe it or not, not all complaints are about balance. I wouldn't want my Tacs to be T5 if my ASM and Devs weren't. Similarly, if you tried to make Dire Avengers T4 while the rest of the Aspect Warriors were T3, I'd also object.

Ice_can wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I hate to sound like a boring record here, but aren't these basically evil spikey aggressors?

They can use a rhino, so no, also 24 inch is more than agressors range of 18

I can see a 5 man Chaincannon squad in a rhino having some nasty potential.

There are a couple of similarities, but a lot more differences.

Aggressors can advance and shoot, get an average of 9.5 shots when moving but 19 when stationary. Oh, and they all have Power Fists.

The movement related abilities especially will mean they are played very differently.

Ice_can wrote:


The Chaincannon is just admiting that heavy bolters suck, this thinm is probably still not anti hoard enough and it too Generalist.
It probably should have been S4 but who knows why GW went with S5.

The move and fire without penalty who knows, it makes them playable but yes it makes no sence the arbitrary lines on who or what gets to move and shoot without penalty.

Heavy bolters don't suck. They just don't make the mathematical splash that chaincannons do. Additionally, CSM lacked access to something that could chew up infantry like a PGC does. But I'd bet a Havoc unit with 4 HBs would crush a 4 CC unit just based on range.

Hell with move and shoot it makes HBs more appealing as they walk back, they're dirt cheap by comparison, and you don't need to babysit them with lots of points.

The more I think on it the more i'm pretty sure my CC will go to CSM and then i'll have 4 AC, 4 HB, and 4 LC havoc units.

Slayer, to give some context:

1): I'm playing Iron Warriors, undivided, probably one of the least chaosy legions so I think it's silly to run a god specific unit in an army like that (As I leave all my units with no marks, they are undivided, not marked)

2):
Iron Warriors Brigade:

Chaos Lord
Exalted Champion
Warp Smith
3x10 Cultist Squads
3x5 Chaos Space Marines
3x5 Chosen Squads (2 in Rhino)
3x3 Biker Squads
2x5 Havoc Squads (In rhino)
1x10 Havoc Squad
1x Predator
2x Rhinos

This is the list I typically run, the 2x5 havoc's have melta guns and the 10 havoc has heavy weapons. Now I can trim 5 guys from the Havoc Squad, but I have to remove all the melta guys and find something to do with them, as well as find other guys for my Heavy Support slot. This is making me basically rebuild my entire list, and at the end of the day I'm going to have to buy more new models than I planned because of it, which is very annoying as someone without that much money anyway.
I've emailed GW asking if the old datasheet is valid in some way, not that I think it is, so you can see why I'm sort of miffed about this.

Them removing options is possibly going to force me to buy new models other than the ones I already planned.

 Sir Heckington wrote:
Slayer, to give some context:

1): I'm playing Iron Warriors, undivided, probably one of the least chaosy legions so I think it's silly to run a god specific unit in an army like that (As I leave all my units with no marks, they are undivided, not marked)

2):
Iron Warriors Brigade:

Chaos Lord
Exalted Champion
Warp Smith
3x10 Cultist Squads
3x5 Chaos Space Marines
3x5 Chosen Squads (2 in Rhino)
3x3 Biker Squads
2x5 Havoc Squads (In rhino)
1x10 Havoc Squad
1x Predator
2x Rhinos

This is the list I typically run, the 2x5 havoc's have melta guns and the 10 havoc has heavy weapons. Now I can trim 5 guys from the Havoc Squad, but I have to remove all the melta guys and find something to do with them, as well as find other guys for my Heavy Support slot. This is making me basically rebuild my entire list, and at the end of the day I'm going to have to buy more new models than I planned because of it, which is very annoying as someone without that much money anyway.
I've emailed GW asking if the old datasheet is valid in some way, not that I think it is, so you can see why I'm sort of miffed about this.

Them removing options is possibly going to force me to buy new models other than the ones I already planned.

A bunch of melta havocs are cool and all, but AC havocs will be hitting from turn 1.

Meltas tagging a 5++ knight at 12" will do 3.1 wounds at 27 points a model and then die. AC will do 1.8 each and every turn at 24 points a model that can move and shoot and it way more durable when they're out of range of any guns they would like to shoot them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
Slayer, to give some context:

1): I'm playing Iron Warriors, undivided, probably one of the least chaosy legions so I think it's silly to run a god specific unit in an army like that (As I leave all my units with no marks, they are undivided, not marked)

2):
Iron Warriors Brigade:

Chaos Lord
Exalted Champion
Warp Smith
3x10 Cultist Squads
3x5 Chaos Space Marines
3x5 Chosen Squads (2 in Rhino)
3x3 Biker Squads
2x5 Havoc Squads (In rhino)
1x10 Havoc Squad
1x Predator
2x Rhinos

This is the list I typically run, the 2x5 havoc's have melta guns and the 10 havoc has heavy weapons. Now I can trim 5 guys from the Havoc Squad, but I have to remove all the melta guys and find something to do with them, as well as find other guys for my Heavy Support slot. This is making me basically rebuild my entire list, and at the end of the day I'm going to have to buy more new models than I planned because of it, which is very annoying as someone without that much money anyway.
I've emailed GW asking if the old datasheet is valid in some way, not that I think it is, so you can see why I'm sort of miffed about this.

Them removing options is possibly going to force me to buy new models other than the ones I already planned.

A bunch of melta havocs are cool and all, but AC havocs will be hitting from turn 1.

Meltas tagging a 5++ knight at 12" will do 3.1 wounds at 27 points a model and then die. AC will do 1.8 each and every turn at 24 points a model that can move and shoot and it way more durable when they're out of range of any guns they would like to shoot them.

It's not about how good it is, it's about the fact that my army (Actual models btw), were invalidated because GW removed options which they could have left in and it wouldn't have effected much at all.

This may be an edge case, but unless GW allows us to use the old datasheet (Which is totally possible), it's invalidating some army's and that's just stupid.

 Sir Heckington wrote:
Slayer, to give some context:

1): I'm playing Iron Warriors, undivided, probably one of the least chaosy legions so I think it's silly to run a god specific unit in an army like that (As I leave all my units with no marks, they are undivided, not marked)

2):
Iron Warriors Brigade:

Chaos Lord
Exalted Champion
Warp Smith
3x10 Cultist Squads
3x5 Chaos Space Marines
3x5 Chosen Squads (2 in Rhino)
3x3 Biker Squads
2x5 Havoc Squads (In rhino)
1x10 Havoc Squad
1x Predator
2x Rhinos

This is the list I typically run, the 2x5 havoc's have melta guns and the 10 havoc has heavy weapons. Now I can trim 5 guys from the Havoc Squad, but I have to remove all the melta guys and find something to do with them, as well as find other guys for my Heavy Support slot. This is making me basically rebuild my entire list, and at the end of the day I'm going to have to buy more new models than I planned because of it, which is very annoying as someone without that much money anyway.
I've emailed GW asking if the old datasheet is valid in some way, not that I think it is, so you can see why I'm sort of miffed about this.

Them removing options is possibly going to force me to buy new models other than the ones I already planned.

Iron Warriors literally had the ability to take Berserker Marines in the past...

Did they? Well, either way there's still an issue because I need HS slots, I basically have to restructure the entire army, the berserker marines isn't the point
It's that GW removing options that people previously used within the same edition is annoying, it's invalidating armies and it's stupid.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
Slayer, to give some context:

1): I'm playing Iron Warriors, undivided, probably one of the least chaosy legions so I think it's silly to run a god specific unit in an army like that (As I leave all my units with no marks, they are undivided, not marked)

2):
Iron Warriors Brigade:

Chaos Lord
Exalted Champion
Warp Smith
3x10 Cultist Squads
3x5 Chaos Space Marines
3x5 Chosen Squads (2 in Rhino)
3x3 Biker Squads
2x5 Havoc Squads (In rhino)
1x10 Havoc Squad
1x Predator
2x Rhinos

This is the list I typically run, the 2x5 havoc's have melta guns and the 10 havoc has heavy weapons. Now I can trim 5 guys from the Havoc Squad, but I have to remove all the melta guys and find something to do with them, as well as find other guys for my Heavy Support slot. This is making me basically rebuild my entire list, and at the end of the day I'm going to have to buy more new models than I planned because of it, which is very annoying as someone without that much money anyway.
I've emailed GW asking if the old datasheet is valid in some way, not that I think it is, so you can see why I'm sort of miffed about this.

Them removing options is possibly going to force me to buy new models other than the ones I already planned.

Iron Warriors literally had the ability to take Berserker Marines in the past...

They still do, some people (like me) don't use them. I do however use a lot of Havocs. So I'm pretty exited about the new changes.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
Slayer, to give some context:

1): I'm playing Iron Warriors, undivided, probably one of the least chaosy legions so I think it's silly to run a god specific unit in an army like that (As I leave all my units with no marks, they are undivided, not marked)

2):
Iron Warriors Brigade:

Chaos Lord
Exalted Champion
Warp Smith
3x10 Cultist Squads
3x5 Chaos Space Marines
3x5 Chosen Squads (2 in Rhino)
3x3 Biker Squads
2x5 Havoc Squads (In rhino)
1x10 Havoc Squad
1x Predator
2x Rhinos

This is the list I typically run, the 2x5 havoc's have melta guns and the 10 havoc has heavy weapons. Now I can trim 5 guys from the Havoc Squad, but I have to remove all the melta guys and find something to do with them, as well as find other guys for my Heavy Support slot. This is making me basically rebuild my entire list, and at the end of the day I'm going to have to buy more new models than I planned because of it, which is very annoying as someone without that much money anyway.
I've emailed GW asking if the old datasheet is valid in some way, not that I think it is, so you can see why I'm sort of miffed about this.

Them removing options is possibly going to force me to buy new models other than the ones I already planned.

Iron Warriors literally had the ability to take Berserker Marines in the past...

Did they? Well, either way there's still an issue because I need HS slots, I basically have to restructure the entire army, the berserker marines isn't the point
It's that GW removing options that people previously used within the same edition is annoying, it's invalidating armies and it's stupid.

You haven't scratched the surface of this. At least you can play your melta havocs as melta chosen. I own 9 lictors. Used to have this thing for a full 9+ deathleaper army. then 8th edition comes, and Lictors become single model datasheets. No upgrade, no model up plus rule of three means that I simply cannot play 6 out of my 9 models ever again in this edition.

At least now people will be safe from my 9 lictor masterplan.

 Sir Heckington wrote:


It's not about how good it is, it's about the fact that my army (Actual models btw), were invalidated because GW removed options which they could have left in and it wouldn't have effected much at all.

This may be an edge case, but unless GW allows us to use the old datasheet (Which is totally possible), it's invalidating some army's and that's just stupid.

Those models themselves are not invalid. They can still be CSM melta holders.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
Slayer, to give some context:

1): I'm playing Iron Warriors, undivided, probably one of the least chaosy legions so I think it's silly to run a god specific unit in an army like that (As I leave all my units with no marks, they are undivided, not marked)

2):
Iron Warriors Brigade:

Chaos Lord
Exalted Champion
Warp Smith
3x10 Cultist Squads
3x5 Chaos Space Marines
3x5 Chosen Squads (2 in Rhino)
3x3 Biker Squads
2x5 Havoc Squads (In rhino)
1x10 Havoc Squad
1x Predator
2x Rhinos

This is the list I typically run, the 2x5 havoc's have melta guns and the 10 havoc has heavy weapons. Now I can trim 5 guys from the Havoc Squad, but I have to remove all the melta guys and find something to do with them, as well as find other guys for my Heavy Support slot. This is making me basically rebuild my entire list, and at the end of the day I'm going to have to buy more new models than I planned because of it, which is very annoying as someone without that much money anyway.
I've emailed GW asking if the old datasheet is valid in some way, not that I think it is, so you can see why I'm sort of miffed about this.

Them removing options is possibly going to force me to buy new models other than the ones I already planned.

Iron Warriors literally had the ability to take Berserker Marines in the past...

Did they? Well, either way there's still an issue because I need HS slots, I basically have to restructure the entire army, the berserker marines isn't the point
It's that GW removing options that people previously used within the same edition is annoying, it's invalidating armies and it's stupid.

You haven't scratched the surface of this. At least you can play your melta havocs as melta chosen. I own 9 lictors. Used to have this thing for a full 9+ deathleaper army. then 8th edition comes, and Lictors become single model datasheets. No upgrade, no model up plus rule of three means that I simply cannot play 6 out of my 9 models ever again in this edition.

At least now people will be safe from my 9 lictor masterplan.

That stuff does happen, especially with some of the more exotic units. The thing is, Havocs have been a stable unit for a loong time*. Essentially Chaos Devastators, who instead of having access to Multi-Meltas, Plsama Cannons, and recently Grav Cannons, have been able to take Special weapons, plus the standard CSM bolter/bolt pistol+chainsword to fill out the squad. Giving the unit some nice rules to boost their appeal, that's all great. Drastically reducing their options for no good reason? Why? It's not like they don't produce the models for the potential options anymore.

Here's hoping they FAQ it like the Chosen-Chainsword thing.

*~17 years since Chaos 3.5 book gave them access to Special Weapons.
~21 years since the 3rd Edition rule book created the unit.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


The Chaincannon is just admiting that heavy bolters suck, this thinm is probably still not anti hoard enough and it too Generalist.
It probably should have been S4 but who knows why GW went with S5.

The move and fire without penalty who knows, it makes them playable but yes it makes no sence the arbitrary lines on who or what gets to move and shoot without penalty.

Heavy bolters don't suck. They just don't make the mathematical splash that chaincannons do. Additionally, CSM lacked access to something that could chew up infantry like a PGC does. But I'd bet a Havoc unit with 4 HBs would crush a 4 CC unit just based on range.

Hell with move and shoot it makes HBs more appealing as they walk back, they're dirt cheap by comparison, and you don't need to babysit them with lots of points.

The more I think on it the more i'm pretty sure my CC will go to CSM and then i'll have 4 AC, 4 HB, and 4 LC havoc units.

No-one should have the broken mess that is a PGC russ, but thats another issue.
Also you think range is going to matter on a 6 inch move unit with 24 inch range? Especially if you bring a rhino.
Also I whole hearted disagree marine Heavy bolters in 8th suck, they don't scare tanks, don't have the volume of dice to threaten hoards. The think carrying the bolter being overpriced kills it, T5 and relentless makes it less bad because the model holding it starts to justify it's point's, that doesn't make a heavy bolter a good statline for a weapon.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:


It's not about how good it is, it's about the fact that my army (Actual models btw), were invalidated because GW removed options which they could have left in and it wouldn't have effected much at all.

This may be an edge case, but unless GW allows us to use the old datasheet (Which is totally possible), it's invalidating some army's and that's just stupid.

Those models themselves are not invalid. They can still be CSM melta holders.

Yeah, but I have to basically restructure my entire army around this and almost definitely buy new models. The models aren't invalid, the units are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
[/spoiler]

Yeah, that's really stupid IMO.

I haven't had a problem with heavy bolters, but they're not exciting.

They're not bad, my heavy bolter units have never underperformed, but they don't do anything exciting that makes me feel like I want to go out of my way to seek them out. They're pretty efficient at killing infantry, particularly medium infantry.


Definitely the move-fire and the existence of the chaincannon is really on the HB's toes. S4 or S3 would have differentiated it and stopped it from seriously threatening tanks, but it's just a better HB right now. It might actually be overkill and invite too much firepower on itself by concentration of cost on a fragile target.

The generic Heavy Bolter is a fine weapon. Should it perhaps be closer to 7-8 points? Maybe. But they do work. Strength 5 is good, and -1 can make a large difference.

Ice_can wrote:

No-one should have the broken mess that is a PGC russ, but thats another issue.
Also you think range is going to matter on a 6 inch move unit with 24 inch range? Especially if you bring a rhino.
Also I whole hearted disagree marine Heavy bolters in 8th suck, they don't scare tanks, don't have the volume of dice to threaten hoards. The think carrying the bolter being overpriced kills it, T5 and relentless makes it less bad because the model holding it starts to justify it's point's, that doesn't make a heavy bolter a good statline for a weapon.

Range matters. Given those two weapons the CC will never reach the HB as the HB squad can freely back pedal. Taking a rhino just makes them cost more and you'll be guaranteed to get popped and for your opponent to dump into them when they spill out.

The math of CC is great. The application of them won't be so stellar. HB might not be sexy, but they're not bad, either.

Bharring wrote:
"The Devastators and Havocs carry heavy weapons, but the ROLE is always going to be based around the weapon they're taking and how effective they are at lugging it around. Due to the special of T5/Relentless or Signum/Cherub, they do the latter part more effectively. "
So a Tac squad holed up in a building consisting of 4 bolter-doods and a Lascannon are going to perform differently than the same 5 guys last week when they were a Dev squad with 4 bolter-doods and a Lascannon? In other words, the same guys, the same gear, and the same role? Same with Chaos Marine/Havoks, of course.

"So yeah, you're complaining for the sake of complaining that Chaos Marines have something nice."
Not at all. Chaos Marines should have something nice. But they shouldn't reinvent what Marines are to make it happen.

"Not that I expected much from Eldar players anyway."
I get that it's a cardinal sin to you to enjoy Eldar, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to also like my Marines.

I want the basic Marine units (Tac, Dev, ASM, and their counterpoints) to be viable. But I want them to still be the basic Marine units I know and love. This "Havoks get +1T/Relentless" style rule means they're not basic Marine units anymore.

And, believe it or not, not all complaints are about balance. I wouldn't want my Tacs to be T5 if my ASM and Devs weren't. Similarly, if you tried to make Dire Avengers T4 while the rest of the Aspect Warriors were T3, I'd also object.

Wait a minute! Do Havocs REALLY have T5 now? Could you please post a link to this info. If this is true it´s the most depressing sales driven rule change that GW pulled off in the last twenty years. Their armour looks the same as that of their mates which have a tactical role.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Their armour looks the same as that of their mates which have a tactical role.

Their armour might be similar, but as they all have to take heavy weapons, the bump in T represents the added mass (just my speculation at fluff justification)
In "Tac" units, only 1 per 5 models can have a Heavy weapons, so it doesn't impact the unit's overall T
As long as GW updates Devs to be the same, I like this change

-

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
So, Havocs can now move and fire without penalty.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/23/23rd-mar-heretic-astartes-focus-the-emperors-childrengw-homepage-post-1/

This is kind of, well, disappointing. Why can a guy carrying a heavy weapon shoot better than a tank?

[Also, if a man can carry a lascannon, why does a predator have a lascannon as a main gun?]

Like Havocs are the only infantry that can move and fire, are you kidding... Though you are right about vehicles, its stupid that they are penalised when in the 21st century we have perfect gyro-scopic weapons, the abrams tank can sit a pint of beer on top of the barrel while moving. Though come to think of it SM's are pretty much tanks.

"Wait a minute! Do Havocs REALLY have T5 now? Could you please post a link to this info. If this is true it´s the most depressing sales driven rule change that GW pulled off in the last twenty years. Their armour looks the same as that of their mates which have a tactical role."
It's been discussed as fact on every page of this thread, but I'm not seeing it in the original post.

I really hope it's just some rumor, but we'll see.

It's in the new datasheets, seen in countless video reviews of Vigilus Ablaze & the new Codex. And it's not exclusive to the English version, hence I don't think it's a typo.

@inirlan Thanks for the clarification!

 Galef wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Their armour looks the same as that of their mates which have a tactical role.

Their armour might be similar, but as they all have to take heavy weapons, the bump in T represents the added mass (just my speculation at fluff justification)
In "Tac" units, only 1 per 5 models can have a Heavy weapons, so it doesn't impact the unit's overall T
As long as GW updates Devs to be the same, I like this change

-

I am not convinced. If you wear the same armour then you should get the same protective traits.

In addition, this 5-man squad now plays like a glass cannon unit. Take a casualty and lose instantly a heavy weapon. I don´t like it at all. They could have at least put TWO rotor cannons in the box as an incentive for a collector like me who owns a completely painted CSM army to buy two boxes of very nice marines to have a squad entirely made up of gatling cannons as they are my favourite heavy weapon. But nope! Every heavy weapon is represented two times and the one everybody and his dog craves just ONCE. Unbelievable! This is straight from the book "How do I piss off my customers for sure" and GW excelled at this technique again. Pathetic!

Edit:
This move & fire ability without penalties is an interesting design choice which was in the past justified by using suspensors attached to the heavy weapons. Though these suspensors were deemed as more advanced equipment in the lore and were thus only available for loyalists. As a consequence, I would expect the loyalists to get the same treatment for their heavy weapons carried by infantry as apparently nowadays in 40K every street corner vendor sells these items for a bargain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 inirlan wrote:
It's in the new datasheets, seen in countless video reviews of Vigilus Ablaze & the new Codex. And it's not exclusive to the English version, hence I don't think it's a typo.

Thanks for the info.