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.

 Gremore wrote:
I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".

Yeah, I cannot help but think they're purposefully not quite doing that and slow-walking the update purely so people cannot just instantly proxy their whole existing marine army.

If we assume that "flying tanks" and "not flying tanks" are the rough equivalents of one another, and people are cool with just proxying to rough equivalents, the old marine units we're still waiting on are:

-Whirlwinds
-Vanquishers
-Predators
-Tacticals with heavy weapons
-Tacticals with flamers
-jump pack assault marines
-Land speeders (depending on whether you consider the spacemario kart to be the new Attack Bike or the new Land Speeder)
-Assault Terminators

Barring the oddball units like the antiair tanks and assuming you just keep stuff like Centurions and Flyers with the justification that it might be a primaris in there you don't know.

There are certainly enough primaris equivalent units that people can (and do) proxy their classic marine armies as primaris already, but there are also a number of things that don't quite fit and primaris units with no non-primaris equivalent. And you already have to kind of make the unified squads out of what were previously special weapons - I have seen people doing it with like all their plasma gun/plasma cannon modeled marines as Hellblasters and I'm sure we'll see all-melta guy squads of the new primaris meltinators

-Invictus (invictor? I forget)
-Suppressors
-Inceptors
-infiltrators/other squad that does that kit

If we assume Reivers and Eliminators give you a way to use basically all the builds of Scout, aggressors = tactical termies, repulsors = land raiders and impulsors = rhinos, that does give you a lot of leeway. but GW certainly has not seemed to be in a hurry to get a full proxy-force available, and they've been releasing multiple kits for what was, previously, just one unit (like Scouts, or now like Assault Marines, where I would guess optional jump packs will not be coming in the assault intercessor kit, and I guess that kit is just purely monobuild)

Aash wrote:

JWBS wrote:

 Gremore wrote:
I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".

Firstly because that would net them less profit than if people bought their entire army as Primaris, so they'd want to disincentivise what you're suggesting there. Secondly it would look a bit crap, if they're all supposed to be Primaris but half the army are stumpy marines.

It might look odd with the difference in size between old marines and primaris, but it’s no different really from the difference between RT era marines and more recent ones, or the size differences between old and new terminators, and many other models from other factions too.

They don't actively encourage us to play RT marines as proxy 7th edition marines though, which is what he's suggesting by them aligning Primaris and oldmarine profiles. Yes, people probably do play with odd-looking mongrel armies, but that's not the official aesthetic that GW are trying to sell.

Dunno.

The hard-Core competitive crowd is certainly still married to Smash Captains, Thunderfires, Centurions and other retro stuff, but the average guy‘s Marine Army I see used at the local GW is all Primaris anyhow.

I doubt GW will nudge it much. Old Marines will continue to have rules alongside ancient Finecast Eldar units and what Not that tournament players will dig through for broken combos they can then relabel as „madz skillz“ while most 40K players will more and more ignore them eventually.

I think the defense of my point comes to this: will you see a new "old marine" unit or character anytime soon?

Of course GW supports older casts with rules, that in no way is what I'm suggesting as it would invalidate 80% of the Eldar army.

What I am saying is, just because they exist now and are supported now doesn't mean they are part of GW's longterm plan, and I am not surprised if those missing units like flamers, whirlwinds, and assault jump packers, get changed to primaris in the future so that everything is this primaris line. Anything they don't see value in converting might just go the way of the dodo, and it would not be the first time GW squatted used units.

The fact that Smash Captains are a thing still is more a bi-product of tournament gaming for the best bang for the buck, not a bi-product of GW support and desire.

 Gremore wrote:
I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".

It also could be because if they changed over wholesale like they did with some AoS armies, they'd have an outright revolt. They decided that a few armies from AoS were okay to scrap without drawing too much ire and losing too much of its playerbase. Imagine if they came out all at once and invalidated all Space Marine armies out there with Primaris. It would be the death of 40K, most likely. Furthermore, I doubt they had the resources (molds, etc.) to replace everything all at once. Phasing in Primaris was the only option. But I agree with you in that the old marines will be going away for good in the near future.

I don't see why they would stop selling them as long as the molds don't break.

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't see why they would stop selling them as long as the molds don't break.

Same reason they stopped selling all the other minis they used to make. It wasn't too long ago they were selling 1980's Jes Goodwin Chaos champions. They obviously have the moulds for them yet I can't buy any.

JSG wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't see why they would stop selling them as long as the molds don't break.

Same reason they stopped selling all the other minis they used to make. It wasn't too long ago they were selling 1980's Jes Goodwin Chaos champions. They obviously have the moulds for them yet I can't buy any.

How many of those were made of plastic?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gremore wrote:
I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".

Yeah, I cannot help but think they're purposefully not quite doing that and slow-walking the update purely so people cannot just instantly proxy their whole existing marine army.

If we assume that "flying tanks" and "not flying tanks" are the rough equivalents of one another, and people are cool with just proxying to rough equivalents, the old marine units we're still waiting on are:

-Whirlwinds
-Vanquishers
-Predators
-Tacticals with heavy weapons
-Tacticals with flamers
-jump pack assault marines
-Land speeders (depending on whether you consider the spacemario kart to be the new Attack Bike or the new Land Speeder)
-Assault Terminators

Barring the oddball units like the antiair tanks and assuming you just keep stuff like Centurions and Flyers with the justification that it might be a primaris in there you don't know.

There are certainly enough primaris equivalent units that people can (and do) proxy their classic marine armies as primaris already, but there are also a number of things that don't quite fit and primaris units with no non-primaris equivalent. And you already have to kind of make the unified squads out of what were previously special weapons - I have seen people doing it with like all their plasma gun/plasma cannon modeled marines as Hellblasters and I'm sure we'll see all-melta guy squads of the new primaris meltinators

-Invictus (invictor? I forget)
-Suppressors
-Inceptors
-infiltrators/other squad that does that kit

If we assume Reivers and Eliminators give you a way to use basically all the builds of Scout, aggressors = tactical termies, repulsors = land raiders and impulsors = rhinos, that does give you a lot of leeway. but GW certainly has not seemed to be in a hurry to get a full proxy-force available, and they've been releasing multiple kits for what was, previously, just one unit (like Scouts, or now like Assault Marines, where I would guess optional jump packs will not be coming in the assault intercessor kit, and I guess that kit is just purely monobuild)

Well, the Primaris ”Land Speeder” and Predator are already leaked in the blurry image. So after they are out we’re basically only waiting for Primaris Terminators/Centurions style unit and they cover all the niches. Midget Marines will go to Legends probably in 10th edition.

From the Tyranid Faction Focus today

***These apply to things like forests and dense industrial ruins, where protection comes more from difficulty in picking out a target, rather than the shots physically being blocked.

With regards to "Dense Terrain"

JWBS wrote:

Aash wrote:

JWBS wrote:

 Gremore wrote:
I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".

Firstly because that would net them less profit than if people bought their entire army as Primaris, so they'd want to disincentivise what you're suggesting there. Secondly it would look a bit crap, if they're all supposed to be Primaris but half the army are stumpy marines.

It might look odd with the difference in size between old marines and primaris, but it’s no different really from the difference between RT era marines and more recent ones, or the size differences between old and new terminators, and many other models from other factions too.

They don't actively encourage us to play RT marines as proxy 7th edition marines though, which is what he's suggesting by them aligning Primaris and oldmarine profiles. Yes, people probably do play with odd-looking mongrel armies, but that's not the official aesthetic that GW are trying to sell.

Honestly though, that is actually the norm for GW. They're known to keep options around for long long long long after models are in print, the reason the "no model no rules" policy is so controversial. New armies are even put out with "nostalgia-based" options fairly often. As an example I have a bunch of RT-era harlequins, which were largely equipped with swords, harlequins' kisses, powerfists, and 'Lightning claws' that were wrist-mounted. Lo and Behold, the 7th era kit comes out, and it's got swords, a glove-based weapon, a kiss, and a slightly altered anti-horde wrist weapon in the embrace - just so happens all my old models have a handy proxy to use.

 Kanluwen wrote:

From the Tyranid Faction Focus today

***These apply to things like forests and dense industrial ruins, where protection comes more from difficulty in picking out a target, rather than the shots physically being blocked.

With regards to "Dense Terrain"

Chunky wording aside (likely an attempt to head off the rules lawyers, I like it.

Kinda pisses on the Raven Guard's bonfire a bit though, since they can't stack it.

IanVanCheese wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

From the Tyranid Faction Focus today

***These apply to things like forests and dense industrial ruins, where protection comes more from difficulty in picking out a target, rather than the shots physically being blocked.

With regards to "Dense Terrain"

Chunky wording aside (likely an attempt to head off the rules lawyers, I like it.

Kinda pisses on the Raven Guard's bonfire a bit though, since they can't stack it.

This also may contain a sneaky twofer - I'd bet that the rule for claiming Cover benefits from Area Terrain is "a model being on or within" the defined boundary of the terrain, and the rule for claiming Cover benefits from an Obstacle is a model being within 3" and the obstacle being closer to the firing model than the claimant model.

Eh. The Raven Guard(and likely anybody else who they reword this to match...looking at you Alaitoc, Alpha Legion, and Stygies!) can't get a -2 to the rolls targeting them...but they can still cancel out a positive modifier.

 Kanluwen wrote:

From the Tyranid Faction Focus today

***These apply to things like forests and dense industrial ruins, where protection comes more from difficulty in picking out a target, rather than the shots physically being blocked.

With regards to "Dense Terrain"

.. eehhhmm anyone noticed how this is REGARDLESS IF THE TARGETED UNIT IS IN TERRAIN?!?!

So you’ll get the bonus even for intervening terrain!

 Kanluwen wrote:

From the Tyranid Faction Focus today

***These apply to things like forests and dense industrial ruins, where protection comes more from difficulty in picking out a target, rather than the shots physically being blocked.

With regards to "Dense Terrain"

This rule doesn't work...

If I have a Space Marine on a base, it's feet are blocking part of the base, so I can't draw a line to "every" part of the base. Also, the part of the base on the back of the model being blocked by the rest of the base. Also, the part on the bottom of the base on the table.

The most important piece I read from this is that things are measured from the base.

I am predicting a basing guide in 9th just as there is one in Age of Sigmar. That's a good thing.

The article mentioned a generous vertical engagement range (not only) for monsters.

I wonder if the engagement range ends up being 1" horizontal and 3" or more vertical, mirroring the unit coherency rule.

I've been asking for exactly that almost from the launch of the 8th...

"Every part of the hull? Does this mean if I park my fellblade 3 behind a 3 tall obstacle with this trait that's only 3 inches wide it's still -1 to be hit? Am I reading this right?

This might be the big winner for infantry blobs so far, should be trivial to either be out of LOS or have a -1 to hit in effect.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

From the Tyranid Faction Focus today

***These apply to things like forests and dense industrial ruins, where protection comes more from difficulty in picking out a target, rather than the shots physically being blocked.

With regards to "Dense Terrain"

This rule doesn't work...

If I have a Space Marine on a base, it's feet are blocking part of the base, so I can't draw a line to "every" part of the base. Also, the part of the base on the back of the model being blocked by the rest of the base. Also, the part on the bottom of the base on the table.

The rule does work. There is no reference to LOS. It is can you trace a line. The line can pass through solid objects, it even says the line can pass through the terrain itself. The -1 to hit is applied if the line you trace passed through or over dense terrain. No reference on if it does or doesn’t pass through anything else including other models, other terrain the front of the base to reach the back of the base etc. So the rule does work.

I expect LOS is determined separately from determining if the target benefits from dense terrain.

A diagram explaining the issue with this rule:

I'm sure they'll have examples in the book to clarify any oddities.

Makes the game less deadly AND causes the RAW purist crowd to have little aneurysms? God damn it's my favorite rule of 9th so far.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A diagram explaining the issue with this rule:

Spoiler:

You say issue, I say workaround that allows for more impactful terrain until they add even more legalese to correct it (or maybe, they don't).

A slightly more accurate diagram:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A slightly more accurate diagram:

Spoiler:

If you can illustrate to me how this rule specifies that a line that is allowed explicitly to pass through the piece of terrain is not allowed to pass thru the model or the atoms of the base, I will say I agree with your little premise here.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A diagram explaining the issue with this rule:

Spoiler:

As I understand the rule you don't need to be able to see the back of the model's base, just trace a straight line to it without that line passing over or through the Dense terrain.

I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers

the_scotsman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A slightly more accurate diagram:

Spoiler:

If you can illustrate to me how this rule specifies that a line that is allowed explicitly to pass through the piece of terrain is not allowed to pass thru the model or the atoms of the base, I will say I agree with your little premise here.

The terrain has holes to allow for LOS. Imagine something like a forest where with infinite amount of lines you can draw to some portion of the visible targets base. That being said, it might be a case of you can draw lines "though" other models just fine for the purposes of determining terrain, so it's not the situation I described.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mothman wrote:
I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers

Following the rules is rules lawyering now? Tell me, do you make your opponents roll to hit when shooting their Boltguns? Yes or No, one word answer please.

 Mothman wrote:
I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers

And if GW thinks they can appease that attitude by trying to write more legalistic rules, they aaaaaaare wrong. People will start talking about "layers of atoms" and alternate definitions of words and whether you can actually draw an imaginary line if you don't have an imaginary pencil - anything to maintain the "thing everyone else thinks is wrong, I am correct" attitude.