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.

Wolf doctrine of wolfiness. Obviously.

Just adding a super-doctrine to DA feels like so much waste potential - they should get some massive bonus for combining two or more wings.

 Jidmah wrote:
Just adding a super-doctrine to DA feels like so much waste potential - they should get some massive bonus for combining two or more wings.

More likely, DA will get a doctrine that DOES NOT apply to DW/RW, but DW/RW will get their own special doctrines. And all 3 will activate while different doctrines are active.
For example "Green-wing" with get the Special doc while the Dev doc is active, DW while the Tac doc is active and RW while the Assault doc is active.
Basically par for the course of GW making it impossible to combine effectiveness for different sub-groups

-

Thats what I would like, except I'd switch Ravenwing and Deathwing. Deathwing should be in assault doctrine as they are called to battle by the Ravenwing.

 bullyboy wrote:
Thats what I would like, except I'd switch Ravenwing and Deathwing. Deathwing should be in assault doctrine as they are called to battle by the Ravenwing.

That's fair.

-

Quick question for anyone who knows, and sorry if it’s a bit random, but did the French guy say Ghazghkull was getting a new model in his PA book?

The replaced the plastic sisters clock at GW headquater with a plastic Ghazghkull clock.

And there not supposed to any model releases with any PA books we know about (so up to SW vs Orks).

Actually pretty happy with this development as a DA player. I've been rebuilding my army as more Primaris-centric from scratch and this really helps me plan it out. Nothing worse than spending 60 dollars and who-knows-how-many hours painting only to find out the unit in question is completely unplayable. Or at least that's the fear. Knowing that I have a good chance of getting access to the vanilla doctrines really helps (um, hello, RW bikers? Tactical Doctrine called)

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Quick question for anyone who knows, and sorry if it’s a bit random, but did the French guy say Ghazghkull was getting a new model in his PA book?

I'd prefer a new character such as Orkemedies

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Quick question for anyone who knows, and sorry if it’s a bit random, but did the French guy say Ghazghkull was getting a new model in his PA book?

Yeah, French guy rumour was Ragnar and Ghazgkull for PA4. He also mentioned a SW vs Orks box set. At the rate GW are going I wouldn't be surprised if we got a teaser during the open day on Saturday.

 Galef wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
So does this stuff make BAngels affective again? Seems like even Intercessors become melee beasts now in assault doctrine.

Turn 3 to come online is to late in 40k. Your mopping up or getting mopped up at that point.

Normally I agree, but it isn't like they get NOTHING in the first 2 turns. They'll still have the Dev & Tac doctrines to give additional -1 to AP on various weapons. And they'll probably get a strat to "skip" to the Assault Doctrine* on turn 2
BAs have always been designed to be built around melee, so they'll never be the best Marine chapter but getting Combat Doctrines put them on par with other non-top tier Chapters (which is still mid to high-mid tier)

*I forget, did White Scars and Black Templar get a similar strat?

-

As a curious party, should we take this shift to mean the other "non-compliant" chapters (DA, SW) will be getting access to Doctrines as we know them? This seems to put the kebash to the theory they'd get their own version.

What I find interesting is that the WC article previewing this mentions BAs as a "compliant" chapters. Which makes me think DAs will most certainly get Combat Doctrines + Special Doctrine of their own. Because when you take out DeathWing and RavenWing, DAs are about as codex compliant as you can get. Far more compliant than BAs-

Far less, actually, though it doesn't mean anything on the table.
Reorganizing the second company as a dedicated mounted 'scout' company isn't codex compliant, and that inherently reorganizes the rest of the companies, since the codex mandates each of those companies have speeder and bike elements.
BA use the codex organization verbatim, some marines are just... 'dead' before they actually stop moving. They don't actually change the setup of the ten companies or reassign elements, they just have individual pre-battle 'casualties' sometimes that need oversight by a chaplain.

JSG wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Quick question for anyone who knows, and sorry if it’s a bit random, but did the French guy say Ghazghkull was getting a new model in his PA book?

Yeah, French guy rumour was Ragnar and Ghazgkull for PA4. He also mentioned a SW vs Orks box set. At the rate GW are going I wouldn't be surprised if we got a teaser during the open day on Saturday.

I hope this is true, Ghazghkull was the first character I ever bought so I’d love a redone version. Fingers crossed for open day.

Ghazghkull would be awesome, but hopefully more like his early 90s version. He seemed more sly and cunning back then.

Ghazzy is a bit of a tricky one to pull off because he's supposed to be a gigantic beast of an Ork but he's also supposed to be by far the most intelligent. It's a difficult juxtaposition to overcome in a model. Likely GW will go all in on the "raging, big, angry Ghaz" and less on the "raging, big, angry, intelligent Ghaz" IF there's any model.

IIRC the French guy was unsure as to whether there was a new model and if it was Ghazzy or another character.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Ghazzy is a bit of a tricky one to pull off because he's supposed to be a gigantic beast of an Ork but he's also supposed to be by far the most intelligent. It's a difficult juxtaposition to overcome in a model. Likely GW will go all in on the "raging, big, angry Ghaz" and less on the "raging, big, angry, intelligent Ghaz" IF there's any model.

IIRC the French guy was unsure as to whether there was a new model and if it was Ghazzy or another character.

For what it's worth, which is probably very little, Ghazzy has been perpetually in and out of the display cabinets at WW since last year's abysmally disappointing "Orktober". I'm not sure if he's being used as reference for a new model, it seems a little peculiar to have the plastics hidden away - that's all.

 Galef wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Just adding a super-doctrine to DA feels like so much waste potential - they should get some massive bonus for combining two or more wings.

More likely, DA will get a doctrine that DOES NOT apply to DW/RW, but DW/RW will get their own special doctrines. And all 3 will activate while different doctrines are active.
For example "Green-wing" with get the Special doc while the Dev doc is active, DW while the Tac doc is active and RW while the Assault doc is active.
Basically par for the course of GW making it impossible to combine effectiveness for different sub-groups-

That would be great but I don't think it will happen at all imo. GW has been unable to give any kind of flavor to deathwing and ravenwing on the table top, except with new models. They won't try much for deathwings and ravenwings imo, unless they actually release primaris DW/RW specific units (something I don't believe in at all).

Voss wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
So does this stuff make BAngels affective again? Seems like even Intercessors become melee beasts now in assault doctrine.

Turn 3 to come online is to late in 40k. Your mopping up or getting mopped up at that point.

Normally I agree, but it isn't like they get NOTHING in the first 2 turns. They'll still have the Dev & Tac doctrines to give additional -1 to AP on various weapons. And they'll probably get a strat to "skip" to the Assault Doctrine* on turn 2
BAs have always been designed to be built around melee, so they'll never be the best Marine chapter but getting Combat Doctrines put them on par with other non-top tier Chapters (which is still mid to high-mid tier)

*I forget, did White Scars and Black Templar get a similar strat?

-

As a curious party, should we take this shift to mean the other "non-compliant" chapters (DA, SW) will be getting access to Doctrines as we know them? This seems to put the kebash to the theory they'd get their own version.

What I find interesting is that the WC article previewing this mentions BAs as a "compliant" chapters. Which makes me think DAs will most certainly get Combat Doctrines + Special Doctrine of their own. Because when you take out DeathWing and RavenWing, DAs are about as codex compliant as you can get. Far more compliant than BAs-

Far less, actually, though it doesn't mean anything on the table.
Reorganizing the second company as a dedicated mounted 'scout' company isn't codex compliant, and that inherently reorganizes the rest of the companies, since the codex mandates each of those companies have speeder and bike elements.
BA use the codex organization verbatim, some marines are just... 'dead' before they actually stop moving. They don't actually change the setup of the ten companies or reassign elements, they just have individual pre-battle 'casualties' sometimes that need oversight by a chaplain.

Yeah on dakka there is rampant a lack of knowledge and understanding of the DA and their fluff ...

I heard the DAs are going to be a CSM supplement next summer.

 Eiríkr wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Ghazzy is a bit of a tricky one to pull off because he's supposed to be a gigantic beast of an Ork but he's also supposed to be by far the most intelligent. It's a difficult juxtaposition to overcome in a model. Likely GW will go all in on the "raging, big, angry Ghaz" and less on the "raging, big, angry, intelligent Ghaz" IF there's any model.

IIRC the French guy was unsure as to whether there was a new model and if it was Ghazzy or another character.

For what it's worth, which is probably very little, Ghazzy has been perpetually in and out of the display cabinets at WW since last year's abysmally disappointing "Orktober". I'm not sure if he's being used as reference for a new model, it seems a little peculiar to have the plastics hidden away - that's all.

It seems unlikely that they'd need the WW display model for a reference. I'm sure they can get their hands on any of a few dozen Ghazzes if they need that.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Ghazzy is a bit of a tricky one to pull off because he's supposed to be a gigantic beast of an Ork but he's also supposed to be by far the most intelligent. It's a difficult juxtaposition to overcome in a model. Likely GW will go all in on the "raging, big, angry Ghaz" and less on the "raging, big, angry, intelligent Ghaz" IF there's any model.

IIRC the French guy was unsure as to whether there was a new model and if it was Ghazzy or another character.

intelligence isn't something you can model very well yeah. Gulliman is proably the smartest mortal character with a model right now, but you'd never know he was a "super genius" if you just looked at him. he's just a "big dude with a flaming sword"

Voss wrote:

 Eiríkr wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Ghazzy is a bit of a tricky one to pull off because he's supposed to be a gigantic beast of an Ork but he's also supposed to be by far the most intelligent. It's a difficult juxtaposition to overcome in a model. Likely GW will go all in on the "raging, big, angry Ghaz" and less on the "raging, big, angry, intelligent Ghaz" IF there's any model.

IIRC the French guy was unsure as to whether there was a new model and if it was Ghazzy or another character.

For what it's worth, which is probably very little, Ghazzy has been perpetually in and out of the display cabinets at WW since last year's abysmally disappointing "Orktober". I'm not sure if he's being used as reference for a new model, it seems a little peculiar to have the plastics hidden away - that's all.

It seems unlikely that they'd need the WW display model for a reference. I'm sure they can get their hands on any of a few dozen Ghazzes if they need that.

Thrakka is in many official pictures with ork models for books and WD, maybe they are taking this model for photo shootings?

Sigh. One of these days we might get a nid article about their roles in PA3....

 nintura wrote:
Sigh. One of these days we might get a nid article about their roles in PA3....

Can’t be too much longer, it’ll be this week sometime. Hopefully tonight, their new rules sounded quite interesting from what they teased.

Also, I’m really curious whether or not BAngels get a second part to the Red Thirst now that Flesh Tearers get 2 parts to theirs.

Several more almost useless articles released, next up, GW shows us painting Catachans!

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I really doubt Death Company Intercessors will be a pregame strat. It differentiation wouldn't be necessary in the Rapid Fire Stratagem if they were.

"ThErEs No MoDeL" - GW

 nintura wrote:
Several more almost useless articles released, next up, GW shows us painting Catachans!

Nope. Nids
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/27/blood-of-baal-faction-focus-tyranidsgw-homepage-post-1/

if you’ve ever dreamed of being a Norn-Queen, your day has come.

Um...

It's not looking good. GW usually previews the best stuff..

Would anyone really waste a psychic power slot on this and risk moving outside of synapse in case this fails ???

Super disappointed in that nid article. Can we just confirm for adaptive physiology it looks like we need to give up our warlord traits to give *a* unit or monster a buff?

we get that and marines get doctrines and super doctrines for the whole army?

This seems decent but from the article, I gather its going to be a trait applicable to one warlord/unit.
Suppose its going on Hive Guard ou tof LOS in cover 100% of the time then ?

"Buy marines or GTFO!!" Gw sales tactic keeps doing its magic...

Jokes aside I'm sure there will be some cool/useful stuff for nids in there somewhere. We will have to wait until the book is out I guess, although it's not looking to be meta shifting. Which is arguably a good thing!
Build your own traits is always useful to come up with new builds.

looks like adaptive physology is ESSENTIALLY a warlord trait you can apply to ANY unit. kinda neat although weather or not it's worth taking is a question

Atroxus wrote:
Super disappointed in that nid article. Can we just confirm for adaptive physiology it looks like we need to give up our warlord traits to give *a* unit or monster a buff?

we get that and marines get doctrines and super doctrines for the whole army?

Barring epic error by community team yep.

Ah well. For a moment it looked non marines might get nice stuff. Silly npc