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.

 Crimson wrote:
Rule of three is stupid and should be removed.

Is the minority view. Most people are glad to have it as a safety valve for the worst skew lists.

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Rule of three is stupid and should be removed.

Is the minority view. Most people are glad to have it as a safety valve for the worst skew lists.

Not the first time most people are wrong. Balance the units properly and it is not needed. The rule affects different armies completely disproportionately. Some armies get a ways to basically ignore it, other don't. It is blatantly stupid that you can have 12 Leman Russes (not even counting FW variants) but only three Onagers.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Rule of three is stupid and should be removed.

Nine hive tyrants?

Well if they would properly cost them maybe, but yes it does limit spamming some of GW most egregious example of WTFBBQ Point's costing of units.

Limit per detachment and per army should be on a Unit's datasheet, not a global rule. Rule of Three is bad because its a work around. Lots of Units in the game should be 1 per army, many others 1 per detachment.

1 per army, or 1 per X points or part thereof (where X is something like 3,000, maybe)?

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Rule of three is stupid and should be removed.

Is the minority view. Most people are glad to have it as a safety valve for the worst skew lists.

Not the first time most people are wrong. Balance the units properly and it is not needed. The rule affects different armies completely disproportionately. Some armies get a ways to basically ignore it, other don't. It is blatantly stupid that you can have 12 Leman Russes (not even counting FW variants) but only three Onagers.

That's a problem with the Guard book being full of broken crap, not with the Rule of Three being a flawed concept. Nothing heavier than a Land Speeder or a Sentinal should be fieldable in Squadrons.

The majority is not wrong on this one.

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Rule of three is stupid and should be removed.

Is the minority view. Most people are glad to have it as a safety valve for the worst skew lists.

Not the first time most people are wrong. Balance the units properly and it is not needed. The rule affects different armies completely disproportionately. Some armies get a ways to basically ignore it, other don't. It is blatantly stupid that you can have 12 Leman Russes (not even counting FW variants) but only three Onagers.

You can't be wrong about whether or not you like playing with it.

No one is running 12 Leman Russes and getting anywhere competitively with it though. It's not a problem, so why get so worked up about it?

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Rule of three is stupid and should be removed.

Is the minority view. Most people are glad to have it as a safety valve for the worst skew lists.

Not the first time most people are wrong. Balance the units properly and it is not needed. The rule affects different armies completely disproportionately. Some armies get a ways to basically ignore it, other don't. It is blatantly stupid that you can have 12 Leman Russes (not even counting FW variants) but only three Onagers.

You can't be wrong about whether or not you like playing with it.

No one is running 12 Leman Russes and getting anywhere competitively with it though. It's not a problem, so why get so worked up about it?

Soooooooo if Russes are theoretically at a point cost where you wouldn't need Rule of Three, why can't we do the same for Flyrants and price them appropriately?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or we could give them the Xenos HQ fix.

The Bike Captain can be trimmed down to one line - he just has a Force Lance.

They can just stop selling the JP captain and drop that from the book.

And so forth.

Because consolidation is great!

(In case it was missed, I'm saying be careful what you wish for. SM HQs have tons of options that were ripped out of other codexes...)

Three Terminator armors having not much difference is perfectly fine for consolidation for a statline. OR are you saying we need different rules for the different Mk Power Armors?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They ALL have separate kits after all!

I should have put a TLDR in my post, to point out what I was saying: that you should be careful what you wish for. Because SM HQs have tons of options that were ripped out of other codexes.

Which, for your Eldar you keep playing martyr for, you have in your index. Or are you suggesting the Index is to be considered defunct?

There's honestly no reason the three frickin separate Terminator Captain entries need to exist. We can put it into one and be done with it.

Pricing units appropriately isn't the only way to achieve balance, which is good because its basically impossible to do. More realistically, there are certain units that are supposed to be really good and very efficient, but should be limited in their quantity to stop them from being spammed. Flyrants and Daemon Princes are both examples of this.

Consider: If they were priced in such a way that it isn't worth taking multiples of them, why care about the rule of 3?

Also consider: How do you go about pricing a Flyrant in such a way that it is worth taking 1, but not worth taking 3 or 6? That's a pretty damn hard balancing act. So just let it be good, but limit the number.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Pricing units appropriately isn't the only way to achieve balance, which is good because its basically impossible to do. More realistically, there are certain units that are supposed to be really good and very efficient, but should be limited in their quantity to stop them from being spammed. Flyrants and Daemon Princes are both examples of this.

Consider: If they were priced in such a way that it isn't worth taking multiples of them, why care about the rule of 3?

Also consider: How do you go about pricing a Flyrant in such a way that it is worth taking 1, but not worth taking 3 or 6? That's a pretty damn hard balancing act. So just let it be good, but limit the number.

Easy:
You make it so that you can only take one per Detachment. It worked for Tau Commanders(Yeah, I know it was a crummy move there...but the difference is that Crisis Suits are trash and need to be upped) in that regard.

Frankly, it's a garbage argument that was made with regards to a lot of these specialist units for Marines.Combat Squads addresses a lot of these issues pretty effectively(allowing for a single 10-man squad to become 2 5-mans is kind of a big deal if this comes into play) but currently is only used with cheap crap to get more objective secured.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Rule of three is stupid and should be removed.

Is the minority view. Most people are glad to have it as a safety valve for the worst skew lists.

Not the first time most people are wrong. Balance the units properly and it is not needed. The rule affects different armies completely disproportionately. Some armies get a ways to basically ignore it, other don't. It is blatantly stupid that you can have 12 Leman Russes (not even counting FW variants) but only three Onagers.

You can't be wrong about whether or not you like playing with it.

No one is running 12 Leman Russes and getting anywhere competitively with it though. It's not a problem, so why get so worked up about it?

Soooooooo if Russes are theoretically at a point cost where you wouldn't need Rule of Three, why can't we do the same for Flyrants and price them appropriately?

Because balance in 40k is far more complex than can possibly be encapsulated in a single number value. Some units become exponentially more powerful when taken in greater numbers. It would be a great shame to not be able to have units with that kind of design in the game. So rule of 3 is a great safety valve to have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As another user suggested too, balance purely through point costing is impossible to achieve in any practical sense. You need other checks and balances.

Another reason this is more of an issue now than in previous editions:

In the past, units tended to have more specific roles. It was common for a unit to be efficient in one area, but then have a glaring weakness or counter. It could be worth using units that were quite inefficient overall just because they were good at one specific role. An army would use a bunch of different specialists, but in limited quantities to balance their pros and cons. Generalist units did exist, but they tended to not really be particularly efficient in any role except perhaps durability per point.

But due to how rules have changed in 8th, this effect has eroded. Now, we pretty much just look at a units efficiency as this rock/paper/scissors dynamic is pretty much gone. Units now tend to be overall efficient or not. This is why if you have a unit that is efficient, its good to just spam a ton of it because nothing is going to hard counter it anyways.

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Rule of three is stupid and should be removed.

Is the minority view. Most people are glad to have it as a safety valve for the worst skew lists.

Not the first time most people are wrong. Balance the units properly and it is not needed. The rule affects different armies completely disproportionately. Some armies get a ways to basically ignore it, other don't. It is blatantly stupid that you can have 12 Leman Russes (not even counting FW variants) but only three Onagers.

Truthfully, I expect Onagers to get some kind of tweak and squadrons to return when they redo the AdMech book. There's too many missing things from the Onagers(the Manipulator Arm, Mindscanner Probes, etc...).

And I'm thinking that updated book will be in the next six months or so. I'm kinda/sorta expecting the next campaign to feature Iron Hands going after the Emperor's Children and AdMech to play a part of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

But due to how rules have changed in 8th, this effect has eroded. Now, we pretty much just look at a units efficiency as this rock/paper/scissors dynamic is pretty much gone. Units now tend to be overall efficient or not. This is why if you have a unit that is efficient, its good to just spam a ton of it because nothing is going to hard counter it anyways.

This is the nostalgia effect. This has always been the case when it comes to competitive play(which is really where Rule of 3 only comes into play).

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Rule of three is stupid and should be removed.

Is the minority view. Most people are glad to have it as a safety valve for the worst skew lists.

Not the first time most people are wrong. Balance the units properly and it is not needed. The rule affects different armies completely disproportionately. Some armies get a ways to basically ignore it, other don't. It is blatantly stupid that you can have 12 Leman Russes (not even counting FW variants) but only three Onagers.

Truthfully, I expect Onagers to get some kind of tweak and squadrons to return when they redo the AdMech book. There's too many missing things from the Onagers(the Manipulator Arm, Mindscanner Probes, etc...).

And I'm thinking that updated book will be in the next six months or so. I'm kinda/sorta expecting the next campaign to feature Iron Hands going after the Emperor's Children and AdMech to play a part of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

But due to how rules have changed in 8th, this effect has eroded. Now, we pretty much just look at a units efficiency as this rock/paper/scissors dynamic is pretty much gone. Units now tend to be overall efficient or not. This is why if you have a unit that is efficient, its good to just spam a ton of it because nothing is going to hard counter it anyways.

This is the nostalgia effect. This has always been the case when it comes to competitive play(which is really where Rule of 3 only comes into play).

Its not just nostalgia. It's a clear pattern from looking at army lists. In 5th ed, you looked at the efficiency of a unit within a specific role. In 8th, the roles are much less specific. In 5th, it was very rare for a unit to be good at anti horde, anti MeQ, and anti- armor. Generally it'd be good at just one. But now we regularly have units that are good at 2/3 or even 3/3 of those, but often not as good at any single one as units in 5th were.

Of course, in previous editions Force Org also limited unit options in a way similar to rule of 3. But the effect I'm describing was still a factor.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or we could give them the Xenos HQ fix.

The Bike Captain can be trimmed down to one line - he just has a Force Lance.

They can just stop selling the JP captain and drop that from the book.

And so forth.

Because consolidation is great!

(In case it was missed, I'm saying be careful what you wish for. SM HQs have tons of options that were ripped out of other codexes...)

Three Terminator armors having not much difference is perfectly fine for consolidation for a statline. OR are you saying we need different rules for the different Mk Power Armors?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They ALL have separate kits after all!

I should have put a TLDR in my post, to point out what I was saying: that you should be careful what you wish for. Because SM HQs have tons of options that were ripped out of other codexes.

Which, for your Eldar you keep playing martyr for, you have in your index. Or are you suggesting the Index is to be considered defunct?

Awesome, I totally missed that Archons still have Jetbike access in the Index! I'm going to go home and look them up again! And Force Axes/Mauls on my Exarchs!
Note: I'm being sarcastic. Those options don't exist in the Index either.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Its not just nostalgia. It's a clear pattern from looking at army lists. In 5th ed, you looked at the efficiency of a unit within a specific role. In 8th, the roles are much less specific. In 5th, it was very rare for a unit to be good at anti horde, anti MeQ, and anti- armor. Generally it'd be good at just one. But now we regularly have units that are good at 2/3 or even 3/3 of those, but often not as good at any single one as units in 5th were.

That's because no longer can you just say "Y has X Strength/AP, this makes it the best".

And frankly, even going back as far as 6th? Weight of Fire was king, same as it is now.

Of course, in previous editions Force Org also limited unit options in a way similar to rule of 3. But the effect I'm describing was still a factor.

"In previous editions", you also had HQs that moved X unit from Elite/HS/FA to Troops and Unique FO charts for certain factions

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Rule of three is stupid and should be removed.

Nine hive tyrants?

You bring me 9 hive tyrants I'll give you 9 piles for the meat wagon back.

All jokes aside, the rule of three is kind of dumb as some armies can circumvent it with scornful ease and all it does it curtail some trouble units while doing nothing to touch other real powerhouse unit selections. As is the traditional way for GW it was a fix for a problem that they fixed with other rules but as is their way they never went back to fix the over nerf because GW is equal parts stubborn and over compensating. Just look at the size creep of all the models, got something to prove GW ? - Comedy detected -

 bullyboy wrote:
OK, so we are supposed to get a reveal tomorrow, which is more than likely the new marines that have been shown in the blurry pics recently. However, does this mean we will see a new codex soon?

If we are, how is this going to be presented. They have to add all of the new vanguard marines in Shadowspear, plus the new executioner, new hover tank, new dread, etc. And this is before they even release the Gravis line of Primaris (who I assume won't be in a new codex unless it is released much later).
This codex is going to be enormous.....unless, it becomes Primaris only. Do we think that we are at that point where this will happen? basically a mini-dex that is simply Primaris and gets tacked onto the existing SM codex.

It's definitely going to be interesting from here on out.

It depends. I doubt we're going to see the Codex soon. IF the other blurry units are the Infiltrators, Eliminators (I think I saw them for sure) and Suppresors with their alternate loads, the Codex is closer than I think. If any of them are missing, it's probably further away. It also may not be a new Codex. It could be a supplement like Angels of Death not a Replacement.

The Captain, Librarian, and Lieutenant will get their own datasheet, not be folded into other Captain/Libby/Lt sheets. That's just how they're doing it now instead of bike/pack/armor upgrade options and they're unlikely to quit halfway through. It's not going to be that huge. How big was the Codex Vanguard? 20 pages? 30? The previous codex was 410. You're going to add 6 data sheets, potentially 1 page of Warlord Traits, and potentially 1 page of Powers, 6ish pages of fluff a couple pages of pictures. Less than 20 pages, 10% of 410 is 41. I'm not even sure Obscruation and the Warlord Traits stick around. Phobos only psychic powers in a Phobos starter set mini-game like Shadowspear kinda-sorta was works. As soon as they hit the main 'dex they kinda sorta don't.

Breton wrote:
Phobos only psychic powers in a Phobos starter set mini-game like Shadowspear kinda-sorta was works. As soon as they hit the main 'dex they kinda sorta don't.

What?

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:
Phobos only psychic powers in a Phobos starter set mini-game like Shadowspear kinda-sorta was works. As soon as they hit the main 'dex they kinda sorta don't.

What?

the buffs in the obscuration powerset only apply to marines with the phobos keyword

If, as is suspected, they're going to continue to add more Primaris types then it would make sense to wait until releasing a full new codex. Sort of...Why not make people buy books twice? I was thinking it could be another starter box with the new new Primaris, and something else, but that's probably wishful thinking that we might get some updated Eldar in plastic, or heck, even new Khorne or Slaanesh dedicated Marines.

I'd kind of forgotten about Shadowspear being anything other than Chaos to be honest though, as outside of the Librarian the new Primaris didn't interest me much. That's not long out so I don't know we'd see another Space Marine starter quite so quick, given they've been a little better recently with mixing in different races and factions. Maybe not a mini-dex in a starter then, how about another Vigilus style book? There are certainly other factions that could benefit from some Specialist Detachments and something with new Marines and a few tidbits for other armies would be a good way for GW to guarantee more sales.

craggy wrote:
If, as is suspected, they're going to continue to add more Primaris types then it would make sense to wait until releasing a full new codex. Sort of...Why not make people buy books twice? I was thinking it could be another starter box with the new new Primaris, and something else, but that's probably wishful thinking that we might get some updated Eldar in plastic, or heck, even new Khorne or Slaanesh dedicated Marines.

I'd kind of forgotten about Shadowspear being anything other than Chaos to be honest though, as outside of the Librarian the new Primaris didn't interest me much. That's not long out so I don't know we'd see another Space Marine starter quite so quick, given they've been a little better recently with mixing in different races and factions. Maybe not a mini-dex in a starter then, how about another Vigilus style book? There are certainly other factions that could benefit from some Specialist Detachments and something with new Marines and a few tidbits for other armies would be a good way for GW to guarantee more sales.

I liked the Lieutenant as a Deep Striking Primaris HQ, and LOVE the Infiltrators. The Libby was nice for a visual option, but I would have been just as tempted to paint him normal and ignore the Phobos/obscuration. The Eliminators weren't bad, except for the LIMIT:3 part. I didn't like the Suppressors at all - it felt like Plasma Inceptors beat the pants off them.

The "starter" sets almost always have Space Marines and something in them. I think there was one, once, with Guard, other than that I think they've all been some flavor of Space Marine. Dark Angels models have been disappearing from the store lately - Perhaps we'll see them in the next set. As for the other army, that depends on when. If it's before the next Campaign book, it'll likely be one of the Vigilus opposition armies - we've already had Death Guard, Black Legion (Dark Imperium. Shadowspear), Eldar(Wake the Dead), and Nids(Tooth and Claw). I think the only thing we're missing from the Vigilus story are the Orks - That probably means White Scars, or Ravenwing, or either/both in a biker brawl. Of course the next set could come after the next campaign book and Vigilus could be over, which would reset the whole thing and depend on which armies they fluffed into the new campaign with an edge to the armies that didn't make it into this one - Tau or Necrons maybe.

Don't forget Forgefiend (I think it was), Breton - Ad Mech + mini-Knights vs. Necrons.

 Dysartes wrote:
Don't forget Forgefiend (I think it was), Breton - Ad Mech + mini-Knights vs. Necrons.

That was Vigilus? I don't remember that?

Breton wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Don't forget Forgefiend (I think it was), Breton - Ad Mech + mini-Knights vs. Necrons.

That was Vigilus? I don't remember that?

I think Forgebane was before that, but so were a few of the others.

Breton wrote:

It depends. I doubt we're going to see the Codex soon. IF the other blurry units are the Infiltrators, Eliminators (I think I saw them for sure) and Suppresors with their alternate loads, the Codex is closer than I think. If any of them are missing, it's probably further away. It also may not be a new Codex. It could be a supplement like Angels of Death not a Replacement.

We have no indications of Suppressors(the drop troopers) having alternate loadouts. We know Eliminators(snipers) have one though, as they literally put it in the Apocalypse datasheet.

The Captain, Librarian, and Lieutenant will get their own datasheet, not be folded into other Captain/Libby/Lt sheets. That's just how they're doing it now instead of bike/pack/armor upgrade options and they're unlikely to quit halfway through.

We'll see. Apocalypse tells a wildly different story. They showed there that it's fairly easy to do these things.

It's not going to be that huge. How big was the Codex Vanguard? 20 pages? 30? The previous codex was 410. You're going to add 6 data sheets, potentially 1 page of Warlord Traits, and potentially 1 page of Powers, 6ish pages of fluff a couple pages of pictures. Less than 20 pages, 10% of 410 is 41. I'm not even sure Obscruation and the Warlord Traits stick around. Phobos only psychic powers in a Phobos starter set mini-game like Shadowspear kinda-sorta was works. As soon as they hit the main 'dex they kinda sorta don't.

Because as soon as they hit the main codex, Phobos ceases to be a thing...?

Breton wrote:

craggy wrote:
If, as is suspected, they're going to continue to add more Primaris types then it would make sense to wait until releasing a full new codex. Sort of...Why not make people buy books twice? I was thinking it could be another starter box with the new new Primaris, and something else, but that's probably wishful thinking that we might get some updated Eldar in plastic, or heck, even new Khorne or Slaanesh dedicated Marines.

I'd kind of forgotten about Shadowspear being anything other than Chaos to be honest though, as outside of the Librarian the new Primaris didn't interest me much. That's not long out so I don't know we'd see another Space Marine starter quite so quick, given they've been a little better recently with mixing in different races and factions. Maybe not a mini-dex in a starter then, how about another Vigilus style book? There are certainly other factions that could benefit from some Specialist Detachments and something with new Marines and a few tidbits for other armies would be a good way for GW to guarantee more sales.

I liked the Lieutenant as a Deep Striking Primaris HQ, and LOVE the Infiltrators. The Libby was nice for a visual option, but I would have been just as tempted to paint him normal and ignore the Phobos/obscuration. The Eliminators weren't bad, except for the LIMIT:3 part. I didn't like the Suppressors at all - it felt like Plasma Inceptors beat the pants off them.

I had exactly the opposite reaction, Suppressors were the first thing I saw the value in, largely because they're less dependent on the other things in Shadowspear. It took me a while to see the value in the Eliminator/Libby combo or to find a use for the Lieutenant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breton wrote:
It's not going to be that huge. How big was the Codex Vanguard? 20 pages? 30? The previous codex was 410. You're going to add 6 data sheets, potentially 1 page of Warlord Traits, and potentially 1 page of Powers, 6ish pages of fluff a couple pages of pictures. Less than 20 pages, 10% of 410 is 41. I'm not even sure Obscruation and the Warlord Traits stick around. Phobos only psychic powers in a Phobos starter set mini-game like Shadowspear kinda-sorta was works. As soon as they hit the main 'dex they kinda sorta don't.

Because as soon as they hit the main codex, Phobos ceases to be a thing...?

I sure hope you're wrong, because Brenton hasn't thought it through. If Lasfusiles are even in the same postal code as Lascannons then Eliminators with Shrouding is suddenly the best AP option in the codex. Maybe not in terms of straight damage output, but because they don't have to worry about being shot off the table turn one.

I'm actually a little worried about how good that combo sounds, GW doesn't let Marines have nice things.

BrianDavion wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:
Phobos only psychic powers in a Phobos starter set mini-game like Shadowspear kinda-sorta was works. As soon as they hit the main 'dex they kinda sorta don't.

What?

the buffs in the obscuration powerset only apply to marines with the phobos keyword

Why would that mean this keyword and the entire discipline would go away...?

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Rule of three is stupid and should be removed.

Is the minority view. Most people are glad to have it as a safety valve for the worst skew lists.

Others of us think it's a stupid, lazy, bullgak excuse for GW to suck donkey balls at internal codex balance that has a serious negative impact on weaker codexes while not really doing anything to curb stronger codexes AND making soup mandatory rather than simply appealing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breton wrote:

It depends. I doubt we're going to see the Codex soon. IF the other blurry units are the Infiltrators, Eliminators (I think I saw them for sure) and Suppresors with their alternate loads, the Codex is closer than I think. If any of them are missing, it's probably further away. It also may not be a new Codex. It could be a supplement like Angels of Death not a Replacement.

We have no indications of Suppressors(the drop troopers) having alternate loadouts. We know Eliminators(snipers) have one though, as they literally put it in the Apocalypse datasheet.

We have lots of indications. The Easy To Build kit bundled in a starter set turning into it's stand alone kit has always (as far as I can remember) ended up adding at least one weapon option to the kit. Assault Bolters into Plasma, Bolt Rifles into Stalker and Assault Bolt Rifles, Flamestorm to Auto Bolt Storm...

The Captain, Librarian, and Lieutenant will get their own datasheet, not be folded into other Captain/Libby/Lt sheets. That's just how they're doing it now instead of bike/pack/armor upgrade options and they're unlikely to quit halfway through.

We'll see. Apocalypse tells a wildly different story. They showed there that it's fairly easy to do these things.

Apoc is it's own system, not 40K. And Just about every datasheet in a 40K Codex I've seen does it the way I mentioned - which is why I pointed out "That's how they're doing it now". As near as I can tell they're trying to keep stat-line modification for upgrades to a minimum.

It's not going to be that huge. How big was the Codex Vanguard? 20 pages? 30? The previous codex was 410. You're going to add 6 data sheets, potentially 1 page of Warlord Traits, and potentially 1 page of Powers, 6ish pages of fluff a couple pages of pictures. Less than 20 pages, 10% of 410 is 41. I'm not even sure Obscruation and the Warlord Traits stick around. Phobos only psychic powers in a Phobos starter set mini-game like Shadowspear kinda-sorta was works. As soon as they hit the main 'dex they kinda sorta don't.

Because as soon as they hit the main codex, Phobos ceases to be a thing...?

Because as soon as they hit the main Codex being ALL Phobos ceases to be a thing. People were already mentioning that when Shadowspear came out and wondering how/if they would integrate that Libby into their Army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:
Phobos only psychic powers in a Phobos starter set mini-game like Shadowspear kinda-sorta was works. As soon as they hit the main 'dex they kinda sorta don't.

What?

the buffs in the obscuration powerset only apply to marines with the phobos keyword

Why would that mean this keyword and the entire discipline would go away...?

Oh I think the Keyword definitely hangs around. And it's possible the Power list sticks around, but they haven't been all that frequently putting multiple power lists in one book.

My prediction for the future.

A lot more primaris, because it seems to me that GW is theming each wave after a single archetype of OG marines

Initial release of the Primaris where the Tactical Marines of the range, plus some odd models. New releases that where debut in Shadowspear are generally based around Scout archetype.

So, I think in the future we'll get similar scaled releases based around at least assault marines, devastators, bikes, terminators, and maybe librarians, what with that "Psychic Awakening" abound. Plus chapter specific stuff of course.

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
My prediction for the future.

A lot more primaris, because it seems to me that GW is theming each wave after a single archetype of OG marines

Initial release of the Primaris where the Tactical Marines of the range, plus some odd models. New releases that where debut in Shadowspear are generally based around Scout archetype.

So, I think in the future we'll get similar scaled releases based around at least assault marines, devastators, bikes, terminators, and maybe librarians, what with that "Psychic Awakening" abound. Plus chapter specific stuff of course.

I don't think they're modeled after an archetype of OG marines, I think they're modeled after a combat role. I think they're trying to cover the chapter themes as well, so we got Intercessors(UM, IF) and Infiltrators (Raven Guard, Night Lords)

I think we will eventually get similar but not obvious/direct replacements for almost everything we already had. I think Aggressors are the Terminator replacements. I'm hoping we don't get Jet bikes, but we do get regular bikes, or some sort of other calvalry mount that works with Technical Space Marines. Maybe one of those giant wheel bike things from Robotech and General Grievous.