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.

Dukeofstuff wrote:
What are the downsides to all this stuff?

They are IOM but not space marines

Valkyrie's are vehicles? They can take Tank Ace?

Tank Ace a vulture. AP1 twin punisher gatling.

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
Valkyrie's are vehicles? They can take Tank Ace?

These are regiment "tactics", and valkyrie's etc are not regiment units.

ItsPug wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
Valkyrie's are vehicles? They can take Tank Ace?

These are regiment "tactics", and valkyrie's etc are not regiment units.

Tank Ace isn't anything to do with the Regimental Tactics, and all the stratagem requires is for the target to be a Astra Militarum Vehicle.
So unless the section on Tank Aces specifically says Valkyries and what have you can't gain the benefit of Tank Ace abilitites, it should be perfectly fine to make a Valk or Vendetta a 'Tank' Ace.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

ItsPug wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
Valkyrie's are vehicles? They can take Tank Ace?

These are regiment "tactics", and valkyrie's etc are not regiment units.

Tank Ace isn't anything to do with the Regimental Tactics, and all the stratagem requires is for the target to be a Astra Militarum Vehicle.
So unless the section on Tank Aces specifically says Valkyries and what have you can't gain the benefit of Tank Ace abilitites, it should be perfectly fine to make a Valk or Vendetta a 'Tank' Ace.

Well I guess we know what one of the first faq questions is going to be.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well I guess we know what one of the first faq questions is going to be.

There's nothing ambiguous about it. The strat says "Astra Militarum Vehicle". Valks have both the "Astra Militarum" and "Vehicle" keywords, just like Russes and Chimeras.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well I guess we know what one of the first faq questions is going to be.

There's nothing ambiguous about it. The strat says "Astra Militarum Vehicle". Valks have both the "Astra Militarum" and "Vehicle" keywords, just like Russes and Chimeras.

Ok. Possibly the first errata then?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well I guess we know what one of the first faq questions is going to be.

There's nothing ambiguous about it. The strat says "Astra Militarum Vehicle". Valks have both the "Astra Militarum" and "Vehicle" keywords, just like Russes and Chimeras.

I think the argument is that it might be unintentional from a design perspective, but honestly doing that just means you now have an Imperial Navy Fighter ace strategy, especially if you used it on something like an Avenger or Lightning. Wouldn't be amazing but definitely thematic.

 Imateria wrote:

Babar_babar wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I love how they had to exclude broodbros from tank aces, apparently there has never been a tank ace fallen to the cult Man GSC can't catch a break.

There seems to be some fun stuff in there. I don't think the game needed more overwatching on a 5+, and now guard vehicles have better living metal/demonic resilience then Necrons of chaos with jury rigging. It's also a bit awkward that they named it the exact same thing as the stratagem "jury rigging" but at least they are trying to make the tanks better and sentinels got a bump which is nice.

All in all I'd say the guard preview is the best yet as it clearly attempts to patch the short comings and issues folks have been having while not being overly good. Hopefully the rest of the book matches this and GSC and Tau both level out to this result.

I'd say the Tau one looked really good to me, but I don't know enough about AM to say whether losing your warlord trait for Tank Aces is a good trade in the way it's an auto take for Tyranids and Adaptive Physioligy.

I also noticed they specifically said there are only 12 regimental doctrines for AM, thats quite a lot less than we've seen for most other factions. Then again, Craftworlds have something like 25 but at least 15 of them are useless, so hopefully this time they actually stopped when they ran out of good ideas.

I will totally pay a CP to give -1AP to a tank commander, I think it is not necessary to give up your WT and we usually swim in CP

The article words it exactly the same as Tyranids Adaptive Physioligy, specifically saying you will have to give up your warlord trait to get them. The stratagem lets you take a second one, not circumvent doing away with the warlord trait.

The stratagej has zero wording to effect of additional or any references to first one. You pick vehicle, it gets tank ace as long as that vehicle did not already have one.

No need to give up wt to use stratagem


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 slave.entity wrote:
Tank Ace a vulture. AP1 twin punisher gatling.

Vulture doesn't have TURRET twln punisher gatling. Doesn't work. Russ sponsons doesn't get ap either

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Can we keep to the topic? The topic isn't; "let's drown the World in a million CSM tears".

And maybe not bring up Codex: Space Marines then too, eh? "Can anyone explain to me why only Codex Marines can build their own chapter but still benefit from Chapter-specific stuff? Isn't that imbalanced by definition?"
You know where that leads (as many other threads have already shown)

 bullyboy wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Can we keep to the topic? The topic isn't; "let's drown the World in a million CSM tears".

And maybe not bring up Codex: Space Marines then too, eh? "Can anyone explain to me why only Codex Marines can build their own chapter but still benefit from Chapter-specific stuff? Isn't that imbalanced by definition?"
You know where that leads (as many other threads have already shown)

isnt the "reason" they can still access them due to being successors? do any of the other "build a_____" thingys state they're a successor(I genuinely dont know)? Nids have splinter fleets, is it that for guard, or are you creating a specific independent regiment?

I dont care either way as I'm 100% Salamanders SM only good or bad. Just want the other factions/races to get the good stuff too.

It seems rather underwhelming for the Astra Militarum's psychic awakening rules support to consist of a revamp of the 4th edition Imperial Guard doctrines system. Heck, so little of this whole "event" has felt whelming at all. What has "awakened", exactly? Do any of these disparate engagements have anything to do with each other? Or is this just, in fact, just an average Sunday in the Imperium of Man, no different from its constant state of galactic warfare.

The focus on Tank Aces is nice, old Maximilian Wieseman was always on my Forge World wishlist, too bad I never managed to get the funds together before it disappeared. Really, though, "create your own regiment / chapter / craftworld / cult / warband / bingo club" should be a part of a faction's core rules instead of shunted off to a supplement that comes out years after the main army list.

Haven't seen all, but I think I like the Astra Militarum stuff best thus far (aside from a gazillion Stormtrooper doctrines that boil down to variants of exploding 6s of some kind).

Litte and/or situational buffs to units like Bullgryn, Hellhounds, Sentinels, Punisher-vehicles, etc.. that I can all see being useful without being game-breaking.

Tau is almost Marine-levels of straight-up OP power-creep madness.

GSC is just garbage.

Astra Militarum (what we've seen) is the kind of stuff I'd like to see from these books.

 bullyboy wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Can we keep to the topic? The topic isn't; "let's drown the World in a million CSM tears".

And maybe not bring up Codex: Space Marines then too, eh? "Can anyone explain to me why only Codex Marines can build their own chapter but still benefit from Chapter-specific stuff? Isn't that imbalanced by definition?"
You know where that leads (as many other threads have already shown)

It's a genuine question - is there any negative in the case of Codex Space Marines or is it literally imbalanced? You'll also note that the rest of that post was entirely on topic (that you seem to have entirely ignored); "Some of the IG stuff looks really strong. Promising. I also like the way some of the options are restricted from Brood Brothers which answers my question from yesterday."

You attempting to call me out for what you believe is hypocrisy is also off topic. Stop wasting posts off topic.

E - we'll have to wait to see the rest of the book to see if GSC have been hard done by, as always it is too early to tell these things.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

It's a genuine question - is there any negative in the case of Codex Space Marines or is it literally imbalanced? You'll also note that the rest of that post was entirely on topic (that you seem to have entirely ignored); "Some of the IG stuff looks really strong. Promising. I also like the way some of the options are restricted from Brood Brothers which answers my question from yesterday."
.

Of course tournament data is not the end-all-be-all of measuring these things, but it's a reasonable indicator to get an idea where things are.

But by those numbers, yes, the current Marine book (not just Iron Hands and Raven Guard, though they lead the pack) is the most broken army in the history of 40K by a long margin. Nothing remotely compares. Not 5th Grey Knights. Not TauDar. Not Screamerstar. Not Maelific Lords, Ynnari or the Castellan.

It's pretty out there.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

It's a genuine question - is there any negative in the case of Codex Space Marines or is it literally imbalanced? You'll also note that the rest of that post was entirely on topic (that you seem to have entirely ignored); "Some of the IG stuff looks really strong. Promising. I also like the way some of the options are restricted from Brood Brothers which answers my question from yesterday."
.

Of course tournament data is not the end-all-be-all of measuring these things, but it's a reasonable indicator to get an idea where things are.

But by those numbers, yes, the current Marine book (not just Iron Hands and Raven Guard, though they lead the pack) is the most broken army in the history of 40K by a long margin. Nothing remotely compares. Not 5th Grey Knights. Not TauDar. Not Screamerstar. Not Maelific Lords, Ynnari or the Castellan.

It's pretty out there.

Apologies, I don't mean 'imbalanced' in terms of power level of the codex, I mean imbalanced in the sense that every other faction has to give something up to get custom traits while SM don't? Am I understanding this right? On a purely game mechanics level there is a discrepancy there?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

It's a genuine question - is there any negative in the case of Codex Space Marines or is it literally imbalanced? You'll also note that the rest of that post was entirely on topic (that you seem to have entirely ignored); "Some of the IG stuff looks really strong. Promising. I also like the way some of the options are restricted from Brood Brothers which answers my question from yesterday."
.

Of course tournament data is not the end-all-be-all of measuring these things, but it's a reasonable indicator to get an idea where things are.

But by those numbers, yes, the current Marine book (not just Iron Hands and Raven Guard, though they lead the pack) is the most broken army in the history of 40K by a long margin. Nothing remotely compares. Not 5th Grey Knights. Not TauDar. Not Screamerstar. Not Maelific Lords, Ynnari or the Castellan.

It's pretty out there.

Apologies, I don't mean 'imbalanced' in terms of power level of the codex, I mean imbalanced in the sense that every other faction has to give something up to get custom traits while SM don't? Am I understanding this right? On a purely game mechanics level there is a discrepancy there?

Yes. A custom trait marine army is still a successor chapter of it's parent and gets their strategems etc.

Where as your custom Hive fleet is just that and does not, for instance get the Kraken strategem, relics or the new spell from PA

wighti wrote:
Yes. A custom trait marine army is still a successor chapter of it's parent and gets their strategems etc.

Where as your custom Hive fleet is just that and does not, for instance get the Kraken strategem, relics or the new spell from PA

Thanks for the response. Sounds kinda dumb when a discrepancy as obvious as this exists in the game.

Do we think they're going to bring the custom subfaction traits in line with SM or bring the SM traits in line with everyone else? Surely they can't keep the two things separate? Surely such an obvious imbalance on a mechanical level such as this is a mistake.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

wighti wrote:
Yes. A custom trait marine army is still a successor chapter of it's parent and gets their strategems etc.

Where as your custom Hive fleet is just that and does not, for instance get the Kraken strategem, relics or the new spell from PA

Thanks for the response. Sounds kinda dumb when a discrepancy as obvious as this exists in the game.

Do we think they're going to bring the custom subfaction traits in line with SM or bring the SM traits in line with everyone else? Surely they can't keep the two things separate? Surely such an obvious imbalance on a mechanical level such as this is a mistake.

Considering all the releases for SM followed their SM setup in regards to successors , whilest everyone else didn't, i'd assume it works as intended for GW so no chance in hell something happening to that state of affaires.


Further these books often shared an SM faction and non SM factions and maintained that status quo.

Some nice stuff in there for guard kinda sprinkled around. For those finding it underwhelming, if you're judging it by marines you're almost always going to be let down when you compare them to marines. We've already seen marines get the best of all worlds and often can have all the cakes and eat them too.

This is a very good look for guard, not game breaking, but gives you tools and some interesting options. Options are what this is all about, or should be anyways.

I can fault GW for a great many things, but they didn't so far do bad by the guard with this, that I see anyways and i've gone over it up, down and side ways.

They did do bad with marines and I don't think they'll ever really fix that but you can't let that be the benchmark of balance of power as if the arms race was following that it would be an absolute crap fest in this game.

Good players I feel will get some nice tools out of this, for guard at least, not sure how GSC look. Also some nice tools for Tau, and we'll see more for the Tempestus tomorrow but so far I'm thrilled to see them getting fleshed out some and for those who say " Why are they a seperate thing ? " They've been partially segregated as their own thing since 6th I believe ? For anyone just playing now, I can see that feeling odd. Just realize it just gives option to run them alone but doesn't force you to do so as they are still part of the guard forces that can moonlight alone.

As for any comments on the story line of the psychic awakening, who really thought this was going to follow some grand design ? I always expected them to be just some small side stories where the book was simply a vehicle to give all the factions touch ups in a more rapid fashion with small model releases intermixed.

I do see so far some good stuff for the guard, I'll make up my mind more for tomorrow so we'll see then.

So, will Tempestus be like a completely new mini dex now? Or can you still include them in a mono-guard army under their Codex IA doctrine and stratagem?

 Esmer wrote:
So, will Tempestus be like a completely new mini dex now? Or can you still include them in a mono-guard army under their Codex IA doctrine and stratagem?

You can't put them on same detachment and have them have their original doctrine either. For that you had to be own detachment. Same way with these no doubt. If you don't want them I'm sure you can put to same detachment with IG guys same as now

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

wighti wrote:
Yes. A custom trait marine army is still a successor chapter of it's parent and gets their strategems etc.

Where as your custom Hive fleet is just that and does not, for instance get the Kraken strategem, relics or the new spell from PA

Thanks for the response. Sounds kinda dumb when a discrepancy as obvious as this exists in the game.

Do we think they're going to bring the custom subfaction traits in line with SM or bring the SM traits in line with everyone else? Surely they can't keep the two things separate? Surely such an obvious imbalance on a mechanical level such as this is a mistake.

Kee in mind an Ultramarines sucessor is still an ultramarines sucessor whereas there's no such thing as a "Ulthwe sucessor craftworld" this is a matter of rules and fluff interaction.

Personally I think the obvious thing is to only give marines access to those expanded abilities when running a pure force. so no running a ultramarines detachment and a raven guard detachment and using both their strats. you get one, or the other, or NEITHER.

that said can we please not derail this thread with "Marines get X! Marines are OP" again

tneva82 wrote:

 Esmer wrote:
So, will Tempestus be like a completely new mini dex now? Or can you still include them in a mono-guard army under their Codex IA doctrine and stratagem?

You can't put them on same detachment and have them have their original doctrine either. For that you had to be own detachment. Same way with these no doubt. If you don't want them I'm sure you can put to same detachment with IG guys same as now

I know, hence mono guard army and not detachment. However, I am wondering if these Scions doctrines are basically just alternatives for the "Storm Troopers" doctrine or if things will work completely different now.

 Esmer wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Esmer wrote:
So, will Tempestus be like a completely new mini dex now? Or can you still include them in a mono-guard army under their Codex IA doctrine and stratagem?

You can't put them on same detachment and have them have their original doctrine either. For that you had to be own detachment. Same way with these no doubt. If you don't want them I'm sure you can put to same detachment with IG guys same as now

I know, hence mono guard army and not detachment. However, I am wondering if these Scions doctrines are basically just alternatives for the "Storm Troopers" doctrine or if things will work completely different now.

Probably just alternatives but we will see, they’ll say something today

We will find out later today a bit more for them. Though running multiple detachments isn't that hard to do and is in fact a wanted thing.

So I'm thinking they will clip into a guard list same as they used to and not have their doctrine. However just take one detachment for the guard and another for the tempestus. and win win.

I could see trying to run a few detachments actually. One with tempestus, one with foot guard and another group with mechanize/armor units. Trying to milk the most from the doctrines and new toys and actually have a pretty talent heavy group. Some tank ace/commander tanks rolling around and regenerating, the tempestus doing some slick stuff and being all tacticool and your guard just stacking some consistent buffs to add in weight of fire and hold zones all with new tools, strats and perks at their disposal.

Not IH amazing but in the right hands I can see this all giving players a bit of a headache while also feeling fun to run. Which is good to me anyways.

Just noticed that the Scions regiments names is basically just GW going through the Greek Alphabet...man, such creativity

 Esmer wrote:
Just noticed that the Scions regiments names is basically just GW going through the Greek Alphabet...man, such creativity

Better that than them trying to come up with copyright friendly nonsense terms.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

It's a genuine question - is there any negative in the case of Codex Space Marines or is it literally imbalanced? You'll also note that the rest of that post was entirely on topic (that you seem to have entirely ignored); "Some of the IG stuff looks really strong. Promising. I also like the way some of the options are restricted from Brood Brothers which answers my question from yesterday."
.

Of course tournament data is not the end-all-be-all of measuring these things, but it's a reasonable indicator to get an idea where things are.

But by those numbers, yes, the current Marine book (not just Iron Hands and Raven Guard, though they lead the pack) is the most broken army in the history of 40K by a long margin. Nothing remotely compares. Not 5th Grey Knights. Not TauDar. Not Screamerstar. Not Maelific Lords, Ynnari or the Castellan.

It's pretty out there.

Apologies, I don't mean 'imbalanced' in terms of power level of the codex, I mean imbalanced in the sense that every other faction has to give something up to get custom traits while SM don't? Am I understanding this right? On a purely game mechanics level there is a discrepancy there?

Correct. Every faction besides Codex: Space Marines must give up subfaction-specific relics, wl traits, stratagems, etc.

Space Marines not only get 6x as many of all those things, as well as unique subfaction-specific rules nobody else gets like super doctrines and psychic power lists, but they get to choose their chapter tactics and take all of that as well.

tbf though that is not the only subfaction-trait related imbalance out there in the game.

The drukhari codex has been split into 3 factions and daemons 4, which must be fielded in exclusion to gain subfaction tactics.

CSM, thousand sons, death guard, grey knights, and genestealer cults all still have subfaction tactics that dont' affect their vehicle units. Particularly relevant to myself GSC have a codex with like 16 non-character units in it and can only get subfaction tactics on 5 of those units.

Death Guard, Grey Knights, Thousand Sons, Blood Angels etc are all locked into a single subfaction tactic with no flexibility to choose, and on top of that a lot of the mono-faction books have the worst chapter traits out there, like Death Guard's "Rapid fire out to 18" range" trait. Daemons get double screwed because they're locked into a single subfaction tactic AND their book is subdivided AND, seemingly for no reason at all, their incredibly lackluster chapter tactics work like auras where you need to be close to a character for them to work? The khorne trait is literally half of 'ere we go and they decided to limit it to a character aura, baffling.

So, Space Marines definitely have been getting more than anyone else got, but they're just "Tier 1" in a tiered system of subfaction related nonsense balance.