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.

Agreed. The face is the crap part. The rest of the model is the awesome amount of over the top. The face looks like he was handed a turd sandwich.

Tor Garadon also needs new legs. The dragging foot is off putting. Because his body is in motion towards his leading foot while his back foot is pointing away from his movement like its not working right. I think the gravis captain legs or rather any gravis legs would of made the model look better.

The Salamander character looks too much like a Stormcast for my liking, but then I was never likely to buy him anyway.

 Galef wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
Personally I think Tor Garadon is the perfect level of stupid.

Indeed. He's ridiculous and I love it.

And just like that, I realize why I like Marines in general, despite not really playing them. As a whole, they are the "perfect level of stupid"

-

Agreed. It's one of the things I don't like about the Infiltrators and Incursors: they look like they're taking themselves too seriously. Bring me 87 skulls per model and chins the size of a tank any day of the week over that.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Tor Garadon also needs new legs. The dragging foot is off putting. Because his body is in motion towards his leading foot while his back foot is pointing away from his movement like its not working right. I think the gravis captain legs or rather any gravis legs would of made the model look better.

He's not moving though, he's striking a pose, at least thats how it looks to me.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
Personally I think Tor Garadon is the perfect level of stupid.

Indeed. He's ridiculous and I love it.

And just like that, I realize why I like Marines in general, despite not really playing them. As a whole, they are the "perfect level of stupid"

-

Agreed. It's one of the things I don't like about the Infiltrators and Incursors: they look like they're taking themselves too seriously. Bring me 87 skulls per model and chins the size of a tank any day of the week over that.

It's quite funny to me how a person's views can change over time. I was introduced to GW through the Lord of the Rings game and didn't really want to play either Warhammer game because of how cartoony they looked at the time.
But after over a decade of playing 40K, I realize that is part of the charm, so much so that when something comes out that seems a bit more "realistic" like Infiltrators/Incursors, I instantly don't like them

-

Our IF players will gladly collect all the unwanted Tor heads - he is going to put them on every one of his primaris sergeants.

An army of Chip Hazards or Lenno-Buseys

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Tor Garadon also needs new legs. The dragging foot is off putting. Because his body is in motion towards his leading foot while his back foot is pointing away from his movement like its not working right. I think the gravis captain legs or rather any gravis legs would of made the model look better.

He's not moving though, he's striking a pose, at least thats how it looks to me.

He's going cover behind a wall that only comes up to his knee. It's quintessentially warhammer.

I'm almost tempted to make a small detachment of IF successors called the Castle Hawks led by Chin von Habsburg.

Now I want to see a Witchfate Tor terrain conversion using only discarded Tor Garadon heads xD

No new Ghazghkull model.... Or that is my interpretation of it.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/09/19/the-return-of-combat-cardsgw-homepage-post-3fw-homepage-post-3/

They talk about adding in new model cards yet Ghaz is clear to see and is not updated in one of the pictures.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
No new Ghazghkull model.... Or that is my interpretation of it.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/09/19/the-return-of-combat-cardsgw-homepage-post-3fw-homepage-post-3/

They talk about adding in new model cards yet Ghaz is clear to see and is not updated in one of the pictures.

It’s a video game, yeah?

They can patch in new cards and artwork for existing cards. They could straight up kill Ghazzy in the fluff after this releases, then either remove him from the game or update his card’s fluff blurb to reflect his death if they wanted to.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
No new Ghazghkull model.... Or that is my interpretation of it.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/09/19/the-return-of-combat-cardsgw-homepage-post-3fw-homepage-post-3/

They talk about adding in new model cards yet Ghaz is clear to see and is not updated in one of the pictures.

keep in mind this is a lisenced video game project (and is basicly a fremium cash grab game from what reviews I've read) so they proably don't get their info about upcoming products that much before we do. and they're not going to hold off a major char just because he's getting a new mini in a month, given patching the card would be, literally effortless.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Tor Garadon also needs new legs. The dragging foot is off putting. Because his body is in motion towards his leading foot while his back foot is pointing away from his movement like its not working right. I think the gravis captain legs or rather any gravis legs would of made the model look better.

Most people push off the side of their foot when moving. I don’t know anyone who walks with both feet pointing forward at all times

From Spikey Bits.

That stratagem is utterly broken. There is no requirement that the unit using it must itself be targetable, so a an unit hiding behind a wall or a character can make all units withing 6" of them untargetable.

So so far the Salamander leaks from a ~week ago have gotten the new character and the hammer right. That Strat wasn’t on their list though.

 Crimson wrote:



From Spikey Bits.

That stratagem is utterly broken. There is no requirement that the unit using it must itself be targetable, so a an unit hiding behind a wall or a character can make all units withing 6" of them untargetable.

Looks like we found the next bandwagon chapter for flavor of the month marine players!

Expect to see a lot of Salamanders lists with Company Veterans soon

In before yet another marine player starts a thread whether it's ok to run blue Salamanders.

 Crimson wrote:



From Spikey Bits.

That stratagem is utterly broken. There is no requirement that the unit using it must itself be targetable, so a an unit hiding behind a wall or a character can make all units withing 6" of them untargetable.

There is that "and visible to it" clause, which would imply that GW thought of that and tried to make it that you can't have immortal units.
Of course, because they have a penchant for poor writing, it seems they forgot to add "or".
It should really be "and/or visible to it". Expect it to be FAQ'd.

Remember when people were saying that the T7, -1 to wound Gravis Captain was pointless?

And/or makes no sense for this. If the closest unit is on the other side of a 3" wall, and/or would let you target them.

As written, you can shoot a unit if the target of the strategem is further away than the unit youre trying to shoot, while using normal shooting rules.

 AduroT wrote:
Remember when people were saying that the T7, -1 to wound Gravis Captain was pointless?

If you want to tie your army down to a guy moving 5" per turn, be my guest. He's got what, 7 wounds with a 3+/4++ save? Even at T7 -1 to wound he's going to go down pretty fast to concentrated fire, and you're bleeding command points if you're using this stratagem on him every turn.

Against S8+ weapons he's essentially a Knight but with only 7 wounds and less than half the mobility.

Voss wrote:
And/or makes no sense for this. If the closest unit is on the other side of a 3" wall, and/or would let you target them.

As written, you can shoot a unit if the target of the strategem is further away than the unit youre trying to shoot, while using normal shooting rules.

Yeah, but it also means that if you hide the target of the stratagem, you've effectively made everything in a 6" bubble immortal for a shooting phase, as you can't shoot what you can't see. That is bs.
Its like those stupid character targeting rules, where you can't shoot a character who's way out in the open because there's a unit of ratlings behind a small wall who's an inch closer to the firing unit.
GW just doesn't think things through. There should at least be a clause where if the target of the stratagem is not visible to the firing unit, then targets can be selected as normal.

That’s not the problem with the wording. The problem is that it doesn’t specify you have to designate a unit that’s visible to an enemy unit.

Given that any part of a single miniature being visible counts as its entire unit being visible in 8th edition, the stratagem would be completely pointless if a protected unit being visible nullifies it’s effect. The parameters of being both the closest unit AND visible is fine as the intention is for whoever the designated target is (which will almost always be a min scout unit, min company vet unit, or techmarine) sacrificing themselves on the frontline and taking fire for their allies. They have to be in front of/closer than whatever they’re protecting for it to work.

2 CP is a bargain, even if you use it as likely intended: Krast Crusader coming around the corner to lay into your units. Nope. Here, eat those 50 points of scouts. It's all you're allowed to declare against. Hell, most Eldar player would think 2 CP is a bargain for making a unit just -1, never mind making scores of units un-targetable.


And if you get janky with shrouded Phobos units hiding and blocking for the rest of the army, it'll become fun.


Also syncs nicely with the Iron Hands stuff if you really, really wanna go to town. Get that Relic Leviathan with a 5+++ WL trait and a buddy behind it carrying the Iron Stone. Put a Salamanders character behind that to be the focus of the strat. Than conga-line the Salamanders Army behind that (possibly with Iron Hands characters and sub-10 wound character dreads mixed in).

Now the only thing the opponent can shoot is the T8 2+/4++/5+++ half-damage, -1 damage, I heal insane amounts of damage each turn Leviathan most people would just ignore in any other scenario .. lol.

But the protecting unit can be closer, but out of LoS. I know a lot of people play effectively without terrain, but on a proper table this is not hard to do at all. Furthermore, you often have front lines and then long ranged firebase of powerful shooty units on the backfield. A single character can render whole firebase untargetable with this stratagem.

And how does this even make sense thematically? The fluff talks about heroic sacrifice, but it still allows the protecting unit to hide. This is total BS.

 Crimson wrote:
But the protecting unit can be closer, but out of LoS. I know a lot of people play effectively without terrain, but on a proper table this is not hard to do at all. Furthermore, you often have front lines and then long ranged firebase of powerful shooty units on the backfield. A single character can render whole firebase untargetable with this stratagem.

And how does this even make sense thematically? The fluff talks about heroic sacrifice, but it still allows the protecting unit to hide. This is total BS.

Yeah, it should really work like grots or Drones. The target of the strat takes hits instead of the unit being shot at. That's much more thematic than every enemy unit suddenly forgetting how to shoot, because there's a marine hiding behind a wall a foot closer than something that's out in the open. Those sort of targeting rules are dumb and needs to die. Starting with the god awful character rules.

That's a very impressive stratagem, GW really are going for power creep once again...

LOL what garbage rule design. It essentially is a stratagem that FORCES a narrative on the other player. Sure, your scrubs can try to perform a noble sacrifice, but I shouldn't be forced into performing the NPC Saturday morning cartoon villain role of shooting everything into the decoy so the GIJoes can win.

This is why I really do hate stratagems in matched play, they are not even remotely balanced and never will be. I think they are a lot of fun to read and combo with in theory, but they make really stupid in game scenarios unless your going for a narrative. There is no way to balance them. 1CP to halve damage on a normal bog standard dread is OK, 1CP to halve damage on an iron hand dreadnought near the new HQ and relic is broken.