Switch Theme:

Daemon weapons are back!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Huh, so you can. Can a model take 2 melee weapons? I mean, I know it can, in theory, I just don't know if CSM has options like that.


Abaddon is the only character I know of that wields two melee weapons and actually has special rules for that. So normally I think the only instance where this happens is with off-hand Chainswords that provide an additional attack, specifically with the Chainsword.

In theory I guess maybe you could ditch a Chaos Lord's ranged weapons, make him Alpha Legion, give him this weapon and the Blade of the Hydra and get +D3 attacks with that. It's a lot of setup for very little payoff.

"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


Huh, so you can. Can a model take 2 melee weapons? I mean, I know it can, in theory, I just don't know if CSM has options like that.


Yup, yup! Not common to take two melee weapons, but it might be ok as a backup to a flubbed daemon weapon.

This model may replace its bolt pistol with one item from the Pistols, Combi-weapons or Melee Weapons list.
This model may replace its chainsword with one item from the Pistols or Melee Weapons list.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/12 16:06:08


 
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
The fact that you have to get into melee with it is a drawback already, it means it's probably going to be used for a round in any given battle.
Dude... did you not see the big keyword KHORNE in the description?

What do you think you're supposed to do, castle in the corner behind an Executioner and not leave your own deployment zone?
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





Yoyoyo wrote:
Dude... did you not see the big keyword KHORNE in the description?

What do you think you're supposed to do, castle in the corner behind an Executioner and not leave your own deployment zone?


I'm quite aware, it doesn't mean it's a tactically intelligent choice within the current game meta.

Strangely, I have better uses for CP than to blow it on a one-turn glory shot that is unlikely to actually do anything significant.

"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Interrogator Chaplains come with a Crozius and can be equiped with other weapons. You gain literally nothing for doing it unless you want a better meele weapon (the plastic miniature comes with a power fist).

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
I'm quite aware, it doesn't mean it's a tactically intelligent choice within the current game meta.
Khorne doesn't care much for your tactical intelligence, lol.

I assume their Tactical Objectives are going to be tailored to the theme of the army -- less "Secure Objective X", more rip and tear.
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





Yoyoyo wrote:
Khorne doesn't care much for your tactical intelligence, lol.

I assume their Tactical Objectives are going to be tailored to the theme of the army -- less "Secure Objective X", more rip and tear.


Ok, I'm sure this is a great sentiment in the lore forum, not so much when we're talking about competitive choices in the game.

"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in us
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





Kansas, United States

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
Khorne doesn't care much for your tactical intelligence, lol.

I assume their Tactical Objectives are going to be tailored to the theme of the army -- less "Secure Objective X", more rip and tear.


Ok, I'm sure this is a great sentiment in the lore forum, not so much when we're talking about competitive choices in the game.


Huh. I guess I missed where this forum was labeled "Competitive Choices in the Game Forum."

EDIT: In other words, not everyone has the same goals from a game as one another, and that doesn't make anyone's goals less valid. Don't dump on someone else for wanting a fluffy gameplay when you want a competitive one.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/12 18:00:00


Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch 
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




Dude, it's like playing Black Templars and then complaining about why GW doesn't write them better rules for castling in the corner. It's completely antithetical to the identity of the army.
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







Yoyoyo wrote:
Dude, it's like playing Black Templars and then complaining about why GW doesn't write them better rules for castling in the corner. It's completely antithetical to the identity of the army.


Most of the game is completely antithetical to the identities of the armies, and the setting. It's not a strong defence.

There's no point in playing Khornate Space Marines; shooting dominates this edition. You get into combat, the enemy falls back. You win the combat, you get shot to pieces. I remember my casual friend arguing 'yeah but when you play CSMs you get like a billion attacks on the charge', but when you look at the math 99% of the time you inflict more damage by simply standing and shooting.

Unfortunately there's a million smug casual players out there with these tales, fables and anecdotes of 'yeah but isn't it COOL' or 'But in my experience...' when all empirical evidence points to the opposite situation.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/11/12 18:33:30


The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.  
   
Made in us
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





Kansas, United States

 blood reaper wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
Dude, it's like playing Black Templars and then complaining about why GW doesn't write them better rules for castling in the corner. It's completely antithetical to the identity of the army.


Most of the game is completely antithetical to the identities of the armies, and the setting. It's not a strong defence.

There's no point in playing Khornate Space Marines; shooting dominates this edition. You get into combat, the enemy falls back. You win the combat, you get shot to pieces. I remember my casual friend arguing 'yeah but when you play CSMs you get like a billion attacks on the charge', but when you look at the math 99% of the time you inflict more damage by simply standing and shooting.



And some people aren't playing the game to look at the math and inflict more damage. Some of them aren't even playing to win, myself included. Some people just like moving toy soldiers around on a mat and making blim-blam noises. Those people have valid opinions too, and shouldn't be silenced for sharing them.

Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch 
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







 Octopoid wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
Dude, it's like playing Black Templars and then complaining about why GW doesn't write them better rules for castling in the corner. It's completely antithetical to the identity of the army.


Most of the game is completely antithetical to the identities of the armies, and the setting. It's not a strong defence.

There's no point in playing Khornate Space Marines; shooting dominates this edition. You get into combat, the enemy falls back. You win the combat, you get shot to pieces. I remember my casual friend arguing 'yeah but when you play CSMs you get like a billion attacks on the charge', but when you look at the math 99% of the time you inflict more damage by simply standing and shooting.



And some people aren't playing the game to look at the math and inflict more damage. Some of them aren't even playing to win, myself included. Some people just like moving toy soldiers around on a mat and making blim-blam noises. Those people have valid opinions too, and shouldn't be silenced for sharing them.


If you're not fundamentally interested in that kind of discussion then why even enter it with people?

If I'm discussing why I want a balanced, competitive game, and someone comes up and says 'yeah but the game needs to fit lore' (despite the game the fact has never faithfully followed the lore or the fluid identities of all of its armies) it's not silencing their opinion to say 'Well yeah but I'm not really interested in that point', because it's effectively irrelevant to the nature of the discussion.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/12 18:39:36


The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.  
   
Made in us
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





Kansas, United States

 blood reaper wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
Dude, it's like playing Black Templars and then complaining about why GW doesn't write them better rules for castling in the corner. It's completely antithetical to the identity of the army.


Most of the game is completely antithetical to the identities of the armies, and the setting. It's not a strong defence.

There's no point in playing Khornate Space Marines; shooting dominates this edition. You get into combat, the enemy falls back. You win the combat, you get shot to pieces. I remember my casual friend arguing 'yeah but when you play CSMs you get like a billion attacks on the charge', but when you look at the math 99% of the time you inflict more damage by simply standing and shooting.



And some people aren't playing the game to look at the math and inflict more damage. Some of them aren't even playing to win, myself included. Some people just like moving toy soldiers around on a mat and making blim-blam noises. Those people have valid opinions too, and shouldn't be silenced for sharing them.


If you're not fundamentally interested in that kind of discussion then why even enter it with people?

If I'm discussing why I want a balanced, competitive game, and someone comes up and says 'yeah but the game needs to fit lore' (despite the game the fact has never faithfully followed the lore or the fluid identities of all of its armies) it's not silencing their opinion to say 'Well yeah but I'm not really interested in that point', because it's effectively irrelevant to the nature of the discussion.


Irrelevant TO YOU. It's not irrelevant to them. Or to me. I can say, "I want a game where I move my toy soldiers forward and pretend to chainsaw your toy soldiers to death!" And then you say, "Well, that's not very effective compared to sitting back and shooting." And then I say, "But I don't want to shoot; I want to chainsaw people." Then you say, "Maybe that belongs in a different forum," and that's the point at which it becomes dismissive and silencing. This isn't a tactics forum, even if it's a tactics discussion. There IS a tactics forum. Feel free to take your tactics discussion there.

That doesn't feel great, does it?

Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch 
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




Assault and shooting are never going to feel balanced for some people because they depend on a lot of factors that are outside of datasheets, meaning terrain on the table and experience of the player. Assault requires a lot of planning in comparison to shooting.

- Closing to charge distance
- Making the charge
- Dealing with overwatch
- Pile-in moves
- Designating attacks
- Calculating damage
- Consolidation

Whereas the shooting phase is pretty simple by comparison. Choose a target, roll dice. There's a lot less that can go wrong, and that's probably important for players who don't like the complexity involved.
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







 Octopoid wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
Dude, it's like playing Black Templars and then complaining about why GW doesn't write them better rules for castling in the corner. It's completely antithetical to the identity of the army.


Most of the game is completely antithetical to the identities of the armies, and the setting. It's not a strong defence.

There's no point in playing Khornate Space Marines; shooting dominates this edition. You get into combat, the enemy falls back. You win the combat, you get shot to pieces. I remember my casual friend arguing 'yeah but when you play CSMs you get like a billion attacks on the charge', but when you look at the math 99% of the time you inflict more damage by simply standing and shooting.



And some people aren't playing the game to look at the math and inflict more damage. Some of them aren't even playing to win, myself included. Some people just like moving toy soldiers around on a mat and making blim-blam noises. Those people have valid opinions too, and shouldn't be silenced for sharing them.


If you're not fundamentally interested in that kind of discussion then why even enter it with people?

If I'm discussing why I want a balanced, competitive game, and someone comes up and says 'yeah but the game needs to fit lore' (despite the game the fact has never faithfully followed the lore or the fluid identities of all of its armies) it's not silencing their opinion to say 'Well yeah but I'm not really interested in that point', because it's effectively irrelevant to the nature of the discussion.


Irrelevant TO YOU. It's not irrelevant to them. Or to me. I can say, "I want a game where I move my toy soldiers forward and pretend to chainsaw your toy soldiers to death!" And then you say, "Well, that's not very effective compared to sitting back and shooting." And then I say, "But I don't want to shoot; I want to chainsaw people." Then you say, "Maybe that belongs in a different forum," and that's the point at which it becomes dismissive and silencing. This isn't a tactics forum, even if it's a tactics discussion. There IS a tactics forum. Feel free to take your tactics discussion there.

That doesn't feel great, does it?


I wouldn't go into the discussion with casual players cause I'd have recognised they wouldn't have cared for my point in the first place. This is a general discussion, and guess what, general discussions include tactics and such.

Even then, your point "I want a game where I move my toy soldiers forward and pretend to chainsaw your toy soldiers to death!" is like, meaningless - it's a non sequitur. It's not a response; there's nothing to address - there is no substance. You aren't saying anything for me to respond to other than 'Good for you! I don't care!'

The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.  
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





 Octopoid wrote:
Irrelevant TO YOU. It's not irrelevant to them. Or to me. I can say, "I want a game where I move my toy soldiers forward and pretend to chainsaw your toy soldiers to death!" And then you say, "Well, that's not very effective compared to sitting back and shooting." And then I say, "But I don't want to shoot; I want to chainsaw people." Then you say, "Maybe that belongs in a different forum," and that's the point at which it becomes dismissive and silencing. This isn't a tactics forum, even if it's a tactics discussion. There IS a tactics forum. Feel free to take your tactics discussion there.

That doesn't feel great, does it?


Super, I acknowledge that you think they're pretty, fluffy and make you feel warm, thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

Now that we've acknowledged your contribution we can continue discussing whether they actually are of any use in, say, winning a game.

"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







Yoyoyo wrote:
Assault and shooting are never going to feel balanced for some people because they depend on a lot of factors that are outside of datasheets, meaning terrain on the table and experience of the player. Assault requires a lot of planning in comparison to shooting.

- Closing to charge distance
- Making the charge
- Dealing with overwatch
- Pile-in moves
- Designating attacks
- Calculating damage
- Consolidation

Whereas the shooting phase is pretty simple by comparison. Choose a target, roll dice. There's a lot less that can go wrong, and that's probably important for players who don't like the complexity involved.


Shooting would be easier to balance if the game functioned more like say, Bolt Action, where shooting can cause fire fights where two units fire at the same time, or other units can respond to being shot at by moving away or into cover, etc. Assault requires planning to a point where it becomes irrelevant, since the risk factor makes the whole endeavour meaningless when it won't achieve any more than shooting will.

IRL, charges in the era of ranged combat were suicide. Historical wargames usually balance it out by having melee combat be extremely fatalistic.

It's not even like Khorne was always fixated on melee to the point of the onlys strategy being a Banzai Charge; in early editions of the game the World Eaters had stuff like Havocs, etc. mentioned in the fluff.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/11/12 18:59:47


The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.  
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




Assault requires planning to a point where it becomes irrelevant, since the risk factor makes the whole endeavour meaningless when it won't achieve any more than shooting will
Sure. The whole point with assault is to achieve more than you would with shooting, like locking down a 300pt unit like a Leviathan Dread using Plaguebearers. Once the Dread is locked down, you can send in a Daemon Prince and finish it off at your leisure. This is pretty much TJ Lanigan's current Chaos list which went 5-0 and that's in the current Marine meta. Would you rather deal with 20x S8 AP2 D2 shots, pumped up by stratagems and aura characters, or deal with 4-5x S8 AP- D1 attacks each round? It's no contest.

Assault armies need a lot of synergy and awareness, and they suffer on tables that don't have enough terrain. But if you think assault isn't relevant in 40k, that's not really borne out by results that we can verify quite easily.
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Yoyoyo wrote:
Khorne doesn't care much for your tactical intelligence, lol.

I assume their Tactical Objectives are going to be tailored to the theme of the army -- less "Secure Objective X", more rip and tear.


Ok, I'm sure this is a great sentiment in the lore forum, not so much when we're talking about competitive choices in the game.


it's also wrong, because khorne embodies all aspects of war.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




Not Online!!! wrote:
it's also wrong, because khorne embodies all aspects of war.
Like psychic powers, for example?
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Yoyoyo wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
it's also wrong, because khorne embodies all aspects of war.
Like psychic powers, for example?


well except that one.




https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





So... let me get this straight...
a deamon sword is a "useless and insulting relic" because... it's a sword....

right I'm going to walk away now in disgust. if you don't think a sword is all that useful.. that's fine, take another relic. but some people like swords etc, and deamon weapons are a fluffy thing chaos has long had that GW's finally put back into the game.

Jesus, you don;'t see black templar players whining about the librarian powers in codex space marines do you? Not every new option needs to be specificly geared to your play style

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/12 20:08:39


Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

a_typical_hero wrote:

"Wait for the book to be released and all rules are available so we can see how they interact with each other." What a truly weird proposal.
It's a weird proposal because this is a discussion board and the point of its existence is to discuss 40k related news as it comes out.

"Don't discuss the new release until this arbitrary point in time!" Why?
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





 BlaxicanX wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:

"Wait for the book to be released and all rules are available so we can see how they interact with each other." What a truly weird proposal.
It's a weird proposal because this is a discussion board and the point of its existence is to discuss 40k related news as it comes out.

"Don't discuss the new release until this arbitrary point in time!" Why?


I think rather it's not "don't discuss the new release until this arbitrary point in time" so much as it's "we don't have the full information. maybe we should not make a final absolute judgement until we do to avoid looking foolish"


Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





Yoyoyo wrote:
Like psychic powers, for example?


Yes actually.

Brass Collar of Borghaster

Scorn of Sorcery

Admittedly, they have nothing on BT at this point, but at one time they were roughly equivalent. Additional litanies certainly fills the psychic gap, especially since they can't be denied.

"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

Yoyoyo wrote:
I feel like some of you guys expect 40k to be managed like an esport. It's not and never will be. Competitive balance will never be prioritized in the same way, 40k is all about aesthetics including fickle Daemon Weapons that fail you 1/6 times. So they are thematic, and that's a good thing. You can reserve a re-roll if you absolutely need the dice to go your way, and Tzeentch at least even has a power for that.
This isn't 1994 anymore. There are too many wargames that are both narratively fun AND balanced for GW and GW apologists to hide behind this notion that 40k can't have good balance because it has a narrative emphasis. Furthermore, the games crap balance actually HURTS it's narrative potential. In the fluff Khorne Marines overrunning a Tau gunline and cutting them to shreds in melee is something that happens. On the table the unviability of melee combat means that 9/10 games result in the Khorne army getting blown off the table if the Tau player has a semblance of a brain.
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





BrianDavion wrote:
So... let me get this straight...
a deamon sword is a "useless and insulting relic" because... it's a sword....


More reading BD. Being a sword is definitely the secondary complaint.

BrianDavion wrote:
right I'm going to walk away now in disgust. if you don't think a sword is all that useful.. that's fine, take another relic. but some people like swords etc, and deamon weapons are a fluffy thing chaos has long had that GW's finally put back into the game.


Let me know when the fluff places in a tournament, thanks.

BrianDavion wrote:
Jesus, you don;'t see black templar players whining about the librarian powers in codex space marines do you? Not every new option needs to be specificly geared to your play style


No, they got six additional litanies that can't be denied and can set up their Chaplains to pop off 2/round. I'd say in the ways that are relevant to their playstyle they made out just fine.

"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

BrianDavion wrote:
 BlaxicanX wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:

"Wait for the book to be released and all rules are available so we can see how they interact with each other." What a truly weird proposal.
It's a weird proposal because this is a discussion board and the point of its existence is to discuss 40k related news as it comes out.

"Don't discuss the new release until this arbitrary point in time!" Why?


I think rather it's not "don't discuss the new release until this arbitrary point in time" so much as it's "we don't have the full information. maybe we should not make a final absolute judgement until we do to avoid looking foolish"

Aye, I addressed that.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
40K has ranged from overall absolutely terrible gameplay design and balance to overall "okay" gameplay design and balance, for the better part of 20 years. And yet, for almost 20 years people like you have been saying "we should wait for more information before drawing conclusions". Don't you think that's weird? What goodwill do you think GW has that would necessitate crossing our fingers and praying that this time, THIS TIME, unlike the last 50 times, there'll be some heretofore unreleased information that will result in these rules being a fantastic addition to the army?

I don't see the problem in acknowledging that the info we've seen points to the rules being garbage as usual. When you take into consideration their track-record it makes more sense to assume that GW will feth up as they usually do and be pleasantly surprised if they don't then to cling to the hope that in the end everything will be great.
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Let me know when the fluff places in a tournament, thanks.
That's going to be a tall order when the rules aren't out for it yet, including the supporting WL Traits, Stratagems, etc.
   
Made in de
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




Bamberg / Erlangen

 blood reaper wrote:
IRL, charges in the era of ranged combat were suicide. Historical wargames usually balance it out by having melee combat be extremely fatalistic.


Just want to say that this is the case when armor technology cannot keep up with weapon technology.
In 40k we do have incredibly durable, mass produced armor which can withstand small arms fire without problems. And there are enough common enemies who will engage in melee like Tyarinds. So having specialised CC units and weaponry does make sense. Keep in mind that in earlier editions power weapons shred every kind of armor, even TDA, while stuff like autocannons could not scratch power armor.

Custom40k Homebrew - Alternate activation, huge customisation, support for all models from 3rd to 10th edition

Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition) 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: