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.

Or maybe people who are playing a rigidly dogmatic force with clear structure object to the injection of units that don't get close to fitting the dogma, have no use in their dogmatic doctrines, make no sense in their structure, and are nothing like army as is.

That's wildly different from "new oblitz", a unit that fits nicely into the dogma, doctrines, and structure of the army as is. In an army known specifically for not being rigidly dogmatic.

"New Oblitz" for Chaos Marines is nothing like Cents or Primaris for Loyalists.

The fluff certainly isn't a masterpiece, but it's a lot more nuanced than "Loyalists are shiny, CSM are bloody".

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:
However, reading the page, what makes you think BA can't use it? The Pick a Space Marines Detachment?

Yes, along with the FAQ that states...

Q: Is a Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves or Deathwatch Detachment also a Space Marines Detachment?
A: No. As defined in Codex: Space Marines, a Space Marines Detachment is a Detachment that only includes units with one of the following Faction keywords:
<Chapter>, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, White Scars, Raven Guard, Iron Hands, Crimson Fists or Black Templars.

Funnily enough, this means Blood Ravens are not space marines

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think the Primaris line of Superbois was designed to unify the fluff. I mean, there are no special snowflake primaris units now.

*cough* wolfwolfwolf leaders? *cough*

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. Some of this stuff needs to be available to everyone. Did you know that, for some God forsaken reason, NO Dark Angels or Blood Angels successor has had Centurions ever for no good reason?

You can have them as soon as SM get veteran bikers, terminators, Talons, lieutenants in land speeders (and twinned weaponry, too, SM not being able to put extra gun on LS is doubly dumb), and rest of exclusive nonsense that often makes no sense (like not being able to put plasma gun into gun sized mount on bike or other SM terminators forgetting how to use anything but heavy flamer...). Deal?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah. It doesn't make business sense ether. It think its to make up for the fact that...codex compliant chapters don't get things like Sang guard, Black Knights, Death company, ect. Cause these "snowflake" chapters have historically been marines +1 since forever. It's only recently and due to the insane buffs from gman that "vanilla" marines are even in the mix. I am all for complete consolidation of marine armies. Just make 1 codex. You can even charge 100 bucks(quid for you english chaps) for it and have it be as thick as a dictionary. These armies share 95% of units and are distinguished by a paragraphs worth of special rules and 2 or 3 unit entries.

Yeah, all SM armies had their own unique strong points in 5th edition (last one when they had any thought put into their books...), but since then, whiners managed to complain until 90% of units exclusive to 'vanilla' SM were handed to special snowflakes, even when it made no sense (because snowflake unit they got instead of generic equipment was so much better no one even used the successfully whined out units, or even better, it didn't fit the fluff of snowflake but they got it anyway). That was entirely one way street, though, and they really should either pare down deviants into their own unique things that CAN'T do everything Codex chapters can, or just take example of HH and make Codex: Marines with variants being given a page of special rules, plus unit or two of their own combined with lack of access to something else. Rites of war is (IMO) one of the few rare things HH did really well...

 Irbis wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:
However, reading the page, what makes you think BA can't use it? The Pick a Space Marines Detachment?

Yes, along with the FAQ that states...

Q: Is a Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves or Deathwatch Detachment also a Space Marines Detachment?
A: No. As defined in Codex: Space Marines, a Space Marines Detachment is a Detachment that only includes units with one of the following Faction keywords:
<Chapter>, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, White Scars, Raven Guard, Iron Hands, Crimson Fists or Black Templars.

Funnily enough, this means Blood Ravens are not space marines

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think the Primaris line of Superbois was designed to unify the fluff. I mean, there are no special snowflake primaris units now.

*cough* wolfwolfwolf leaders? *cough*

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. Some of this stuff needs to be available to everyone. Did you know that, for some God forsaken reason, NO Dark Angels or Blood Angels successor has had Centurions ever for no good reason?

You can have them as soon as SM get veteran bikers, terminators, Talons, lieutenants in land speeders (and twinned weaponry, too, SM not being able to put extra gun on LS is doubly dumb), and rest of exclusive nonsense that often makes no sense (like not being able to put plasma gun into gun sized mount on bike or other SM terminators forgetting how to use anything but heavy flamer...). Deal?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah. It doesn't make business sense ether. It think its to make up for the fact that...codex compliant chapters don't get things like Sang guard, Black Knights, Death company, ect. Cause these "snowflake" chapters have historically been marines +1 since forever. It's only recently and due to the insane buffs from gman that "vanilla" marines are even in the mix. I am all for complete consolidation of marine armies. Just make 1 codex. You can even charge 100 bucks(quid for you english chaps) for it and have it be as thick as a dictionary. These armies share 95% of units and are distinguished by a paragraphs worth of special rules and 2 or 3 unit entries.

Yeah, all SM armies had their own unique strong points in 5th edition (last one when they had any thought put into their books...), but since then, whiners managed to complain until 90% of units exclusive to 'vanilla' SM were handed to special snowflakes, even when it made no sense (because snowflake unit they got instead of generic equipment was so much better no one even used the successfully whined out units, or even better, it didn't fit the fluff of snowflake but they got it anyway). That was entirely one way street, though, and they really should either pare down deviants into their own unique things that CAN'T do everything Codex chapters can, or just take example of HH and make Codex: Marines with variants being given a page of special rules, plus unit or two of their own combined with lack of access to something else. Rites of war is (IMO) one of the few rare things HH did really well...

To be fair, Spacepooches aren't even Astartes anymore than Bullgryns are. They are mutants, and even derided as heretics by the inquisition. They are a bull crap furry fan fic that wears power armor. So, yeah, they can have all their special chariots pulled by wolves. They are a bullcrap faction.

Oh look, its "gak on other people's faction choices" o'clock again.

Bharring wrote:
Or maybe people who are playing a rigidly dogmatic force with clear structure object to the injection of units that don't get close to fitting the dogma, have no use in their dogmatic doctrines, make no sense in their structure, and are nothing like army as is.

That's wildly different from "new oblitz", a unit that fits nicely into the dogma, doctrines, and structure of the army as is. In an army known specifically for not being rigidly dogmatic.

"New Oblitz" for Chaos Marines is nothing like Cents or Primaris for Loyalists.

The fluff certainly isn't a masterpiece, but it's a lot more nuanced than "Loyalists are shiny, CSM are bloody".

Every unit is a new unit at some point. Plus these are fluff argument which are fine. It's no reason not to like the models. IMO cents look a lot better than the new oblitz. But since it doesn't have spikes....everyone complains.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or maybe people who are playing a rigidly dogmatic force with clear structure object to the injection of units that don't get close to fitting the dogma, have no use in their dogmatic doctrines, make no sense in their structure, and are nothing like army as is.

That's wildly different from "new oblitz", a unit that fits nicely into the dogma, doctrines, and structure of the army as is. In an army known specifically for not being rigidly dogmatic.

"New Oblitz" for Chaos Marines is nothing like Cents or Primaris for Loyalists.

The fluff certainly isn't a masterpiece, but it's a lot more nuanced than "Loyalists are shiny, CSM are bloody".

Every unit is a new unit at some point. Plus these are fluff argument which are fine. It's no reason not to like the models.

IOW: "Your argument is fine. But it's no reason to have an opinion."

IMO cents look a lot better than the new oblitz.

That's as valid an opinion as any.

But since it doesn't have spikes....everyone complains.

But your followup is to return to dismissing any opinion that dissents as silly.

Sure, some of the complaints are about the model itself ("Lets enclose an engineered super-soldier in Power Armor. Then lets enclose that Power Armor in *bigger* Power Armor."). But most complaints about Cents were about fluff, role, and fit - not about how good the model looked. Dismissing those as "Stupid people don't understand - my opinion is the one true way" doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or maybe people who are playing a rigidly dogmatic force with clear structure object to the injection of units that don't get close to fitting the dogma, have no use in their dogmatic doctrines, make no sense in their structure, and are nothing like army as is.

That's wildly different from "new oblitz", a unit that fits nicely into the dogma, doctrines, and structure of the army as is. In an army known specifically for not being rigidly dogmatic.

"New Oblitz" for Chaos Marines is nothing like Cents or Primaris for Loyalists.

The fluff certainly isn't a masterpiece, but it's a lot more nuanced than "Loyalists are shiny, CSM are bloody".

Every unit is a new unit at some point. Plus these are fluff argument which are fine. It's no reason not to like the models.

IOW: "Your argument is fine. But it's no reason to have an opinion."

IMO cents look a lot better than the new oblitz.

That's as valid an opinion as any.

But since it doesn't have spikes....everyone complains.

But your followup is to return to dismissing any opinion that dissents as silly.

Sure, some of the complaints are about the model itself ("Lets enclose an engineered super-soldier in Power Armor. Then lets enclose that Power Armor in *bigger* Power Armor."). But most complaints about Cents were about fluff, role, and fit - not about how good the model looked. Dismissing those as "Stupid people don't understand - my opinion is the one true way" doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Cents have got to be the most hated model in the history of the game. You can basically predict when someone mentions them that the next 10-20 posts will be people arguing about how they are ugly and should't exist. Just drawing a parallel with the new oblit models which it doesn't happen for them. I wasn't saying your argument was bad ether because it was a fluff one. I was just stating that fluff is not a reason to not like a models aesthetics unless it was misprotreying something about it's own lore - these don't do that. It's basically ad hominem attack against cents when it happens.

To rephrase:
You can have the opinion they shouldn't exist - but don't say the models look bad because of that opinion. If you think they look bad because they look bad fine. I just find that hard to believe. They are pretty sweet looking.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or maybe people who are playing a rigidly dogmatic force with clear structure object to the injection of units that don't get close to fitting the dogma, have no use in their dogmatic doctrines, make no sense in their structure, and are nothing like army as is.

That's wildly different from "new oblitz", a unit that fits nicely into the dogma, doctrines, and structure of the army as is. In an army known specifically for not being rigidly dogmatic.

"New Oblitz" for Chaos Marines is nothing like Cents or Primaris for Loyalists.

The fluff certainly isn't a masterpiece, but it's a lot more nuanced than "Loyalists are shiny, CSM are bloody".

Every unit is a new unit at some point. Plus these are fluff argument which are fine. It's no reason not to like the models.

IOW: "Your argument is fine. But it's no reason to have an opinion."

IMO cents look a lot better than the new oblitz.

That's as valid an opinion as any.

But since it doesn't have spikes....everyone complains.

But your followup is to return to dismissing any opinion that dissents as silly.

Sure, some of the complaints are about the model itself ("Lets enclose an engineered super-soldier in Power Armor. Then lets enclose that Power Armor in *bigger* Power Armor."). But most complaints about Cents were about fluff, role, and fit - not about how good the model looked. Dismissing those as "Stupid people don't understand - my opinion is the one true way" doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Cents have got to be the most hated model in the history of the game. You can basically predict when someone mentions them that the next 10-20 posts will be people arguing about how they are ugly and should't exist. Just drawing a parallel with the new oblit models which it doesn't happen for them. I wasn't saying your argument was bad ether because it was a fluff one. I was just stating that fluff is not a reason to not like a models aesthetics unless it was misprotreying something about it's own lore

Not true. Models' aesthetics can be disliked for a wide array of reasons. One is misportraying something about their own lore. Another is having terrible lore manifest in the model ("Power Armor wearing Power Armor"). Another is not meshing with the scene (such as the army stands next to). Another is because it looks dumb (I think Cents look dumb even beyond the fluff problems). People should - and will - like or dislike how a model looks for a variety of factors that impact how it looks. And how it reflects it's specfic subset of lore is only one small part of that.

- these don't do that.

Debateable. But not meaningful, as that's not the only measure.

It's basically ad hominem attack against cents when it happens.

Do you know what they call an ad hominem attack against the actual subject of debate? A logical argument. The `ad hominem` fallacy is when you attack an individual instead of the subject. An attack on the subject is effectively the *exact opposite* of the `ad hominem` fallacy.

To rephrase:
You can have the opinion they shouldn't exist - but don't say the models look bad because of that opinion.

But what if models *do* look bad because of the fluff abominations? If a new Guardsman came out with a Lasgun bigger than a Predator, it'd look bad. Not fitting the scene is part of asethetics of the models.

I'm not saying they look bad purely because they shouldn't exist. I'm saying they look bad because their lore is so terrible and they fit the scene so badly. Power Armor wearing Power Armor just looks silly to me.

Its not an attack on the subject. If you believe cents shouldn't exist due to fluff and then GW says - "nope this is the new fluff" then people start calling them ugly because you don't want them to exist. It's literally text book ad hominem.

Attacking the person (thing) and not the argument is ad hominem.

Firstly any news or speculation on this new rule?

Second I think cents are interesting cause they basically took dread level firepower and slapped it on a single marine.

 fraser1191 wrote:
Firstly any news or speculation on this new rule?

Second I think cents are interesting cause they basically took dread level firepower and slapped it on a single marine.

Nope typical GW pace.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Its not an attack on the subject.

When arguing whether they should exist, calling them ugly is an ad hominem *if and only if* being ugly is irrelevant to whether they should exist.
When arguing whether they are ugly, arguing they should/should not exist is an ad hominem *if and only if* whether they should exist is irrelevant to asethetics.

If you believe cents shouldn't exist due to fluff and then GW says - "nope this is the new fluff" then people start calling them ugly because you don't want them to exist. It's literally text book ad hominem.

Two adhominem examples in one sentence.

First, mixing "people" and "you" makes the intention to attack the person you're arguing with obvious, even if ineffectual in this case.
Second, way you intended - close enough. There's an example of an ad hominem there, too. Calling something ugly because of something that doesn't impact whether it's ugly would be an ad hominem. But two problems with that.

The first is a non sequitor. You're assuming that the concept behind the model has no bearings on it's asethetics. The high bias of people appreciating the looks of non-abstract models basically dismisses that claim out of hand. Models clearly look more or less ugly in part by the concepts they represent - because if they did not, random abstract models would be just as sought after as models that represent actual things.

The second is a strawman. You're asserting that the only reason people think the models are ugly is because they hate the fluff.

Attacking the person (thing) and not the argument is ad hominem.

The argument here is the thing - Centurions. Attacking Centurions is entirely on-topic and not an ad hominem when discussing their value.

Just to clarify, space wolves are cool, awesome and neat. I love my over the top Logan Chariot thank you much. My guys riding wolves, with wolves on wolves. The wulfen are a bit much, but they hit like a titanium brick so you can't avoid it. Also, the faction as a whole set off PETA so in my book that makes them triple aces.

I don't care if some don't like it, they don't need to play them. However do I constantly say standard marines are beyond boring ? Do I say primaris marines are about the most bland creation ever dreamed up ? That in fact if they are the whole future for marines they are the true resident sleeper faction of 40k ?

No, I don't, so stop pooping on my wolves people. I also think Centurions look cool, they have ED209 toes.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Its not an attack on the subject.

When arguing whether they should exist, calling them ugly is an ad hominem *if and only if* being ugly is irrelevant to whether they should exist.
When arguing whether they are ugly, arguing they should/should not exist is an ad hominem *if and only if* whether they should exist is irrelevant to asethetics.

If you believe cents shouldn't exist due to fluff and then GW says - "nope this is the new fluff" then people start calling them ugly because you don't want them to exist. It's literally text book ad hominem.

Two adhominem examples in one sentence.

First, mixing "people" and "you" makes the intention to attack the person you're arguing with obvious, even if ineffectual in this case.
Second, way you intended - close enough. There's an example of an ad hominem there, too. Calling something ugly because of something that doesn't impact whether it's ugly would be an ad hominem. But two problems with that.

The first is a non sequitor. You're assuming that the concept behind the model has no bearings on it's asethetics. The high bias of people appreciating the looks of non-abstract models basically dismisses that claim out of hand. Models clearly look more or less ugly in part by the concepts they represent - because if they did not, random abstract models would be just as sought after as models that represent actual things.

The second is a strawman. You're asserting that the only reason people think the models are ugly is because they hate the fluff.

Attacking the person (thing) and not the argument is ad hominem.

The argument here is the thing - Centurions. Attacking Centurions is entirely on-topic and not an ad hominem when discussing their value.

Wasn't using you in that sense my friend. "You" is often used as a proxy for a hypothetical individual. Thats the sense I was using it in. A hypothetical person (as I was mentioning the mass online hate against cents) that hates cents. That is who "you" was in that post.

There are 2 basic arguments against cents -
1 - they shouldn't exist in fluff. GW write fluff. So you can't win this argument - so people just use #2 (lots of these people just don't want to by new models - they probably also hate primaris units)

2 - they are ugly.

At least this is the way I see it. There could be other reasons but it's mostly this.

I'm fine with the basic concept of the Centurions, an additional exoskeleton for carrying even heavier weapons seems like fine concept, I just happen to think that the execution is awful. Primaris Centurions, anyone?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Its not an attack on the subject.

When arguing whether they should exist, calling them ugly is an ad hominem *if and only if* being ugly is irrelevant to whether they should exist.
When arguing whether they are ugly, arguing they should/should not exist is an ad hominem *if and only if* whether they should exist is irrelevant to asethetics.

If you believe cents shouldn't exist due to fluff and then GW says - "nope this is the new fluff" then people start calling them ugly because you don't want them to exist. It's literally text book ad hominem.

Two adhominem examples in one sentence.

First, mixing "people" and "you" makes the intention to attack the person you're arguing with obvious, even if ineffectual in this case.
Second, way you intended - close enough. There's an example of an ad hominem there, too. Calling something ugly because of something that doesn't impact whether it's ugly would be an ad hominem. But two problems with that.

The first is a non sequitor. You're assuming that the concept behind the model has no bearings on it's asethetics. The high bias of people appreciating the looks of non-abstract models basically dismisses that claim out of hand. Models clearly look more or less ugly in part by the concepts they represent - because if they did not, random abstract models would be just as sought after as models that represent actual things.

The second is a strawman. You're asserting that the only reason people think the models are ugly is because they hate the fluff.

Attacking the person (thing) and not the argument is ad hominem.

The argument here is the thing - Centurions. Attacking Centurions is entirely on-topic and not an ad hominem when discussing their value.

Wasn't using you in that sense my friend. "You" is often used as a proxy for a hypothetical individual. Thats the sense I was using it in. A hypothetical person (as I was mentioning the mass online hate against cents) that hates cents. That is who "you" was in that post.

The mixed third party pronoun calls meaning into question. I'd suggest consistency in pronouns. Generally using one with only a break or two form the pattern suggests the break(s) to be intentional, and thus impart meaning.

There are 2 basic arguments against cents -
1 - they shouldn't exist in fluff. GW write fluff. So you can't win this argument -

Fandom rejecting WordOfGod for a preferred canon isn't unique to 40k. People certainly can - and do - reject things on such grounds. All the time.

so people just use #2

Rejecting whether something makes sense tends to heavily impact the subjective asethetic impression it has. So whether they think it "should exist"/"makes sense" *does* impact your #2. That's not an Ad Hominem (as long as their asethetic reception is actually impacted, and it's not an excuse).

(lots of these people just don't want to by new models - they probably also hate primaris units)

Lots of people scorned Cents (and/or primaris), then bought new models. You're strawmanning quite heavily here.

2 - they are ugly.

At least this is the way I see it. There could be other reasons but it's mostly this.

False dichotomy. It's funny to see you recognize and dismiss it being so in the same breath.

Bharring you must be a english teacher or something because you seem to enjoy this. You are blowing things out of proportion. The entire above post is full of my opinions. I even end the post with "at least that is what I think". Take a break man.

The problem is you're expressing an opinion that I - and others - are being intentionally dishonest. And, beyond just stating opinion, you're trying to "prove" it.

"Just stating my opinion" doesn't mean as much when your "opinion" belittles others.

Bharring wrote:
The problem is you're expressing an opinion that I - and others - are being intentionally dishonest. And, beyond just stating opinion, you're trying to "prove" it.

"Just stating my opinion" doesn't mean as much when your "opinion" belittles others.

Maybe you aren't being dishonest. In fact I believe you. I think the fact that new choas oblitz don't have the attached stigma that goes along with cents is pretty telling. It is quite possible that I am just a paranoid space marine fanboy even though I play practically every army in the game. The hate space marines get is second to none and cents are their most hated model. Also I forgot another reason. Grav cents hurt their feelers in 7th.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think the fact that new choas oblitz don't have the attached stigma that goes along with cents is pretty telling.

I think it is because being an anatomically implausible abomination is perfectly valid for the Obliterators.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The problem is you're expressing an opinion that I - and others - are being intentionally dishonest. And, beyond just stating opinion, you're trying to "prove" it.

"Just stating my opinion" doesn't mean as much when your "opinion" belittles others.

Maybe you aren't being dishonest. In fact I believe you. I think the fact that new choas oblitz don't have the attached stigma that goes along with cents is pretty telling.

The hate new-Havoks got that new-Oblitz didn't is, I think, much more telling. It's not "Spikes vs Non" that makes the difference.

It is quite possible that I am just a paranoid space marine fanboy even though I play practically every army in the game. The hate space marines get is second to none

You should try posting something like "CWE aren't superior to Marines in every way possible" just once. Space Marines are probably one of the *least* hated factions. CWE, IG, Knights, DE, Ynarri, Tau, and more all get much more hate.

and cents are their most hated model.

How can it simply be "People hate Marines" if Cents get more hate than other Marine kits get?

Also I forgot another reason. Grav cents hurt their feelers in 7th.

People loved the new Windrider Jetbike kit. That "hurt their feelers" far more. So did Serpents. IG Guardsmen. And many, many more kits that are much less hated than Grav Cents.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Just to clarify, space wolves are cool, awesome and neat. I love my over the top Logan Chariot thank you much. My guys riding wolves, with wolves on wolves. The wulfen are a bit much, but they hit like a titanium brick so you can't avoid it. Also, the faction as a whole set off PETA so in my book that makes them triple aces.

I don't care if some don't like it, they don't need to play them. However do I constantly say standard marines are beyond boring ? Do I say primaris marines are about the most bland creation ever dreamed up ? That in fact if they are the whole future for marines they are the true resident sleeper faction of 40k ?

No, I don't, so stop pooping on my wolves people. I also think Centurions look cool, they have ED209 toes.

All I got out of that was "WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF."

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The problem is you're expressing an opinion that I - and others - are being intentionally dishonest. And, beyond just stating opinion, you're trying to "prove" it.

"Just stating my opinion" doesn't mean as much when your "opinion" belittles others.

Maybe you aren't being dishonest. In fact I believe you. I think the fact that new choas oblitz don't have the attached stigma that goes along with cents is pretty telling.

The hate new-Havoks got that new-Oblitz didn't is, I think, much more telling. It's not "Spikes vs Non" that makes the difference.

It is quite possible that I am just a paranoid space marine fanboy even though I play practically every army in the game. The hate space marines get is second to none

You should try posting something like "CWE aren't superior to Marines in every way possible" just once. Space Marines are probably one of the *least* hated factions. CWE, IG, Knights, DE, Ynarri, Tau, and more all get much more hate.

and cents are their most hated model.

How can it simply be "People hate Marines" if Cents get more hate than other Marine kits get?

Also I forgot another reason. Grav cents hurt their feelers in 7th.

People loved the new Windrider Jetbike kit. That "hurt their feelers" far more. So did Serpents. IG Guardsmen. And many, many more kits that are much less hated than Grav Cents.

They got the ability to move and shoot without pentalty and t5 for +1 point which they still aren't very good but have the ability to shoot twice at +1 to wound standard. Their models look awesome though. The new oblitz are literally based of cents...that is the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think the fact that new choas oblitz don't have the attached stigma that goes along with cents is pretty telling.

I think it is because being an anatomically implausible abomination is perfectly valid for the Obliterators.

But a marine driving and exosuit isn't? Exosquad was one of my favorite shows growing up - I think the idea is fine.

 Xenomancers wrote:

But a marine driving and exosuit isn't? Exosquad was one of my favorite shows growing up - I think the idea is fine.

The idea is fine. I just think the execution sucks.

 Galef wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
It's because this is a data sheet for fielding a sarge with pistol, nades, and chainsword.

Nope, datasheet says Intercessor SQUAD, not just the Sgt.
But like I said, it could be that GW is moving away from listing the stats for default wargear and LISTED interchangeable options, but the picture shown is puzzling nonetheless.

-

but that just seems even more confusing to not show the standard loadout.... am i missing something?

Martel732 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Just to clarify, space wolves are cool, awesome and neat. I love my over the top Logan Chariot thank you much. My guys riding wolves, with wolves on wolves. The wulfen are a bit much, but they hit like a titanium brick so you can't avoid it. Also, the faction as a whole set off PETA so in my book that makes them triple aces.

I don't care if some don't like it, they don't need to play them. However do I constantly say standard marines are beyond boring ? Do I say primaris marines are about the most bland creation ever dreamed up ? That in fact if they are the whole future for marines they are the true resident sleeper faction of 40k ?

No, I don't, so stop pooping on my wolves people. I also think Centurions look cool, they have ED209 toes.

All I got out of that was "WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF."

He had me at PETA getting all triggered. I'm in favor of respecting the rights of things with a nervous system but it irritates me to be in agreement with those nutters.

I agree with most of their ideas. But they do have some impractical ideas. I agree with them more than GW, for sure.

Nobody really has any idea what’s going to happen.

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with most of their ideas. But they do have some impractical ideas. I agree with them more than GW, for sure.

Well first off, what I said at first was more " Wolf Wolf Wolf..Wolf...ED209 toes. "

That out of the way the fact you are in agreement with PETA does explain a good deal.

I have to believe a group that feels plastic fur is murder mentally cashed out a long time ago. I think we can all agree animals are good " Being that we ourselves are animals " without drinking their brand of kool aid.

I end with saying, wolf wolf wolf..and wolf. So leave my space wolves alone, I don't swim in your toilet so stop trying to pee in my wolf pool.

Bharring wrote:
Or maybe people who are playing a rigidly dogmatic force with clear structure object to the injection of units that don't get close to fitting the dogma, have no use in their dogmatic doctrines, make no sense in their structure, and are nothing like army as is.

That's wildly different from "new oblitz", a unit that fits nicely into the dogma, doctrines, and structure of the army as is. In an army known specifically for not being rigidly dogmatic.

"New Oblitz" for Chaos Marines is nothing like Cents or Primaris for Loyalists.

The fluff certainly isn't a masterpiece, but it's a lot more nuanced than "Loyalists are shiny, CSM are bloody".

So basically "we don't like change and don't want anything new". Got it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Man, if ever there was a dumb design idea. Due to the paint on your armor, you are completely incapable of understanding how this predator shoots it's gun.

Well, that's what people who like these variant codices want. No consolidation, mah unique units!

Vulkan doesn't understand how the Baal Pred works.

"Wait.....hold on....a tank that shoots fire? I don't understand that at all. Count me out."

Exactly. Some of this stuff needs to be available to everyone. Did you know that, for some God forsaken reason, NO Dark Angels or Blood Angels successor has had Centurions ever for no good reason?

Yeah. It doesn't make business sense ether. It think its to make up for the fact that...codex compliant chapters don't get things like Sang guard, Black Knights, Death company, ect. Cause these "snowflake" chapters have historically been marines +1 since forever. It's only recently and due to the insane buffs from gman that "vanilla" marines are even in the mix. I am all for complete consolidation of marine armies. Just make 1 codex. You can even charge 100 bucks(quid for you english chaps) for it and have it be as thick as a dictionary. These armies share 95% of units and are distinguished by a paragraphs worth of special rules and 2 or 3 unit entries.

Exactly. You just give each Chapter 3-4 unique units and you're done. Bam. Done. Hell I'm for removing certain characters too outside fluff. Nobody is going to miss Asmodai on the table, sorry.