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.

I'm not aggressive in any way, I'm just stating fact : the stormhawk "INTERCEPTOR" and the nephilim "JET FIGHTER" have the same exact role. This is a fact, not something that's up to discuss or argue about. If you can't just understand and acknowledge the basic fact that are said, what's the point ?

It's like this new tank, the "gladiator" : it is basically a predator. The predator and the gladiator overlap, they are both flexibles light tank. This is not a discussion, it's just a fact : those two units have the same exact tactical role, and if one is better than the other (point wise, rule wise, etc.) then there's no point in buying/taking the other.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Never mind the fact that Cataphractii and Tartaros can mix weapons. Do we need an Assault Cataphractii unit now?

Cataphractii and Tartaros Terminators aren't the regular squads and have nothing to do with this.

You're really bad at arguments.

Hopefully the codex is structured with a "Core" section, followed by "Chapter-specific" sections where unique units, chapter tactics, etc are detailed.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Hopefully the codex is structured with a "Core" section, followed by "Chapter-specific" sections where unique units, chapter tactics, etc are detailed.

They already said Supplements are following, so no Chapter unique units, strats, etc. in the book.

WhiteDog wrote:I'm not aggressive in any way, I'm just stating fact : the stormhawk "INTERCEPTOR" and the nephilim "JET FIGHTER" have the same exact role. This is a fact, not something that's up to discuss or argue about. If you can't just understand and acknowledge the basic fact that are said, what's the point ?

They might have a similar role, yes. But when did GW care so much about redundancy that they'd get rid of units? Stalkers and Hunters are both AA tanks. Most Primaris units have a degree of overlap with their Firstborn counterparts. And yet none of them have been removed.

It's almost like GW don't care about redundancy, and are more than happy to have model bloat.

It's like this new tank, the "gladiator" : it is basically a predator. The predator and the gladiator overlap, they are both flexibles light tank. This is not a discussion, it's just a fact : those two units have the same exact tactical role, and if one is better than the other (point wise, rule wise, etc.) then there's no point in buying/taking the other.

In the same vein, the Land Raider is the same as a Repulsor, and a Razorback is the same as an Impulsor. That's why Land Raiders and Razorbacks don't exist, right?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Never mind the fact that Cataphractii and Tartaros can mix weapons. Do we need an Assault Cataphractii unit now?

Cataphractii and Tartaros Terminators aren't the regular squads and have nothing to do with this.

You're really bad at arguments.

Why does them not being regular squads change anything? Mixed weapon terminators are a thing in lore and in newer units. It's not unique to the Deathwing, and shouldn't be used as a defence.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:I'm not aggressive in any way, I'm just stating fact : the stormhawk "INTERCEPTOR" and the nephilim "JET FIGHTER" have the same exact role. This is a fact, not something that's up to discuss or argue about. If you can't just understand and acknowledge the basic fact that are said, what's the point ?

They might have a similar role, yes. But when did GW care so much about redundancy that they'd get rid of units? Stalkers and Hunters are both AA tanks. Most Primaris units have a degree of overlap with their Firstborn counterparts. And yet none of them have been removed.

It's almost like GW don't care about redundancy, and are more than happy to have model bloat

Stalker and hunters do not have the same tactical role. Rule #1 please

...since when did the Deathwatch follow the Codex Astartes?

I was agaisnt the unification in the form most people asking for it wanted it, basically stripping all special options because "muh bloat".

In this way we'll have a core codex with everything up to date and all the special stuff in supplements. So is the best approach. I like it. And if it means Dark Angel Centurions (I just love the models, sorry not sorry) I'm all over it.

WhiteDog wrote:
Stalker and hunters do not have the same tactical role.

Of course, one is an AA tank, and the other is an... AA tank.

Yeah, such a difference.

Think more.

Drop it with these sorts of comments. You're being needlessly antagonistic and patronising.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I was agaisnt the unification in the form most people asking for it wanted it, basically stripping all special options because "muh bloat".

In this way we'll have a core codex with everything up to date and all the special stuff in supplements. So is the best approach. I like it. And if it means Dark Angel Centurions (I just love the models, sorry not sorry) I'm all over it.

I love some DA Centurions. I think they'd look so cool if someone could kitbash some robey goodness on them.

 Galas wrote:
I was agaisnt the unification in the form most people asking for it wanted it, basically stripping all special options because "muh bloat".

In this way we'll have a core codex with everything up to date and all the special stuff in supplements. So is the best approach. I like it. And if it means Dark Angel Centurions (I just love the models, sorry not sorry) I'm all over it.

That seems needlessly expensive to me. I have to buy a codex for my rules and then buy a supplement for all my units. Yay...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
Stalker and hunters do not have the same tactical role.

Of course, one is an AA tank, and the other is an... AA tank.

Yeah, such a difference.

Think more.

Drop it with these sorts of comments. You're being needlessly antagonistic and patronising.

The Stalker is a light AA tank, with heavy rate of fire, the hunter is a heavy AA tank. Yeah it's different, like the Gladiator and the Repulsor Executioner : both are tanks, one is a light tank, less costly and more flexible, while the other is more durable with better weapons.

GW pump a gak ton of units for marines but they don't produce units that overlap : oftentime the units they produce follows very basic rules so that the tactical role of units don't overlap (interceptor/bomber/transports for flyers for exemple). When they do overlap, it usually means they will replace one with the other (predator / gladiator ; tactical SM / intercessor).

WhiteDog wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:I'm not aggressive in any way, I'm just stating fact : the stormhawk "INTERCEPTOR" and the nephilim "JET FIGHTER" have the same exact role. This is a fact, not something that's up to discuss or argue about. If you can't just understand and acknowledge the basic fact that are said, what's the point ?

They might have a similar role, yes. But when did GW care so much about redundancy that they'd get rid of units? Stalkers and Hunters are both AA tanks. Most Primaris units have a degree of overlap with their Firstborn counterparts. And yet none of them have been removed.

It's almost like GW don't care about redundancy, and are more than happy to have model bloat

Stalker and hunters do not have the same tactical role. Think more.

They have the exact same tactical role: Dust Collector.

I suspect this is more or less a 9e Index to pull all SM into the new edition at broadly the same point and Chapter books will follow

And if youre miffed about loss of options find yourself a Deldar player theyll share coping techniques for this sort of thing

WhiteDog wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
Stalker and hunters do not have the same tactical role.

Of course, one is an AA tank, and the other is an... AA tank.

Yeah, such a difference.

Think more.

Drop it with these sorts of comments. You're being needlessly antagonistic and patronising.

The Stalker is a light AA tank, with heavy rate of fire, the hunter is a heavy AA tank.

They have the same chassis. There's no more of a "light/heavy" difference than the difference between Predator turrets, or Razorback turrets.

Yeah it's different, like the Gladiator and the Repulsor Executioner : both are tanks, one of a light tank, less costly and more flexible, while the other is more durable.

Two tanks with totally different chassis', amounts of weapons, transport capacities? Yeah, of course they're seperate!

The Stalker and Hunter are literally identical barring their main weapon, both of which are anti-air batteries. Are Razorbacks with lascannons different tanks to Razorbacks with heavy bolters? No, because they're both IFVs, with a modest troop capacity and a heavy turret weapon to provide fire support.

pm713 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I was agaisnt the unification in the form most people asking for it wanted it, basically stripping all special options because "muh bloat".

In this way we'll have a core codex with everything up to date and all the special stuff in supplements. So is the best approach. I like it. And if it means Dark Angel Centurions (I just love the models, sorry not sorry) I'm all over it.

That seems needlessly expensive to me. I have to buy a codex for my rules and then buy a supplement for all my units. Yay...

We are space marine players, we are subsidizing all the small armies. One has to accept it, is the price for having the most up to date rules and models.

Yes, I like this, so long as they keep the deny/allow list up to date as new primaris are released.

They have the same chassis. There's no more of a "light/heavy" difference than the difference between Predator turrets, or Razorback turrets.

lol you're a treat. Have a nice day.

PS: do you know the hunter and the stalker don't have the same gun ?

It's good, but it will probably only last as long as new Primaris units are 'vanilla'. Once the range is filled out and they inevitably start producing chapter-specific Primaris it'll be back to codexes... unless of course they realise they can pull more money from having 'em by the already most expensive codex + a supplement.

 Galas wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I was agaisnt the unification in the form most people asking for it wanted it, basically stripping all special options because "muh bloat".

In this way we'll have a core codex with everything up to date and all the special stuff in supplements. So is the best approach. I like it. And if it means Dark Angel Centurions (I just love the models, sorry not sorry) I'm all over it.

That seems needlessly expensive to me. I have to buy a codex for my rules and then buy a supplement for all my units. Yay...

We are space marine players, we are subsidizing all the small armies. One has to accept it, is the price for having the most up to date rules and models.

I was happier when my army was more ignored by GW and didn't get an increasing pile of crap added into it honestly. The worst thing that happened to wolves since I started was GW "updating" them. Almost all of it is trash.

Unless we see which units get axed or not, I think everybody can be happy, no?

- "Ordinary" Marine players are the first to get a new codex
- Deviants like BA, SW and so on don't have to wait an additional time before a FAQ or new codex brings them in line with their brethren
- Xenos and Chaos might get their respective codizes sooner, since we won't get separate codex releases for BA, SW, ... .

Now they said there will be supplements, but they hopefully don't take as much development time as a full codex.


Personally I'm playing Blood Angels and I'm not afraid of losing anything. Even if all special units end up being purely cosmetic paint jobs from now on, the Codex Astartes offers enough selection to still fulfill my personal army fantasy.

pm713 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I was agaisnt the unification in the form most people asking for it wanted it, basically stripping all special options because "muh bloat".

In this way we'll have a core codex with everything up to date and all the special stuff in supplements. So is the best approach. I like it. And if it means Dark Angel Centurions (I just love the models, sorry not sorry) I'm all over it.

That seems needlessly expensive to me. I have to buy a codex for my rules and then buy a supplement for all my units. Yay...

We are space marine players, we are subsidizing all the small armies. One has to accept it, is the price for having the most up to date rules and models.

I was happier when my army was more ignored by GW and didn't get an increasing pile of crap added into it honestly. The worst thing that happened to wolves since I started was GW "updating" them. Almost all of it is trash.

I mean... you can not buy all of those units and models.

 Galas wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I was agaisnt the unification in the form most people asking for it wanted it, basically stripping all special options because "muh bloat".

In this way we'll have a core codex with everything up to date and all the special stuff in supplements. So is the best approach. I like it. And if it means Dark Angel Centurions (I just love the models, sorry not sorry) I'm all over it.

That seems needlessly expensive to me. I have to buy a codex for my rules and then buy a supplement for all my units. Yay...

We are space marine players, we are subsidizing all the small armies. One has to accept it, is the price for having the most up to date rules and models.

I was happier when my army was more ignored by GW and didn't get an increasing pile of crap added into it honestly. The worst thing that happened to wolves since I started was GW "updating" them. Almost all of it is trash.

I mean... you can not buy all of those units and models.

That translates into not using most of the codex at this stage. It's not great when most of the pages are full of things I don't use and things I do use are basically intentionally shooting myself in the foot because GW balances rules as well as they write the fluff.

In fact, let's go over the whole "aircraft redundancy" thing.

Stormtalon - an air-to-ground hover gunship, armed with assault cannons and some form of missile/lascannon/heavy bolter. Two guns, hovering, ground attack.
Stormhawk - an aerial dogfighting interceptor (no bonuses for attacking ground troops, and bonuses when engaging flyers), assault cannons, heavy bolters/missiles, AND a main long-barrel cannon. Three guns, unable to hover, aerial attack.
Nephilim - an air-to-ground non-hovering gunship, with EITHER an assault cannon stand-in or lascannons, heavy bolters, AND missiles. Three guns, unable to hover, ground attack.
Dark Talon - an air-to-ground hover bomber, with a single height powered cannon and a bunch of small arms bolters. Two guns and bombs, hovering, ground attack.

So, we have a ground strafing gunship with VTOL, an aerial supremacy dogfighter, an even more heavily armed pure strafing gunship, and a bomber with no medium strength weaponry.

Sounds like four unique roles to me.

WhiteDog wrote:

They have the same chassis. There's no more of a "light/heavy" difference than the difference between Predator turrets, or Razorback turrets.

do you know the hunter and the stalker don't have the same gun ?

Yeah, they don't have the same guns. Just like how Predator Executioners and Predator Destructors don't have the same guns, but fill the same combat role of a medium battle tank.

Hunters and Stalkers fill the same role - static AA tank. One goes about it with single target precision, the other goes about it with massed firepower, but both have the same core role.

There's more similarity between those two than there is between any two of the four aircraft mentioned above.

 Sasori wrote:
This is something people have been asking for a very long time, and I think it's a positive change.

Space marine players asked for being made to buy 2 books instead of one codex for their army? Well I guess stranger things happen daily.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In fact, let's go over the whole "aircraft redundancy" thing.

Stormtalon - an air-to-ground hover gunship, armed with assault cannons and some form of missile/lascannon/heavy bolter. Two guns, hovering, ground attack.
Stormhawk - an aerial dogfighting interceptor (no bonuses for attacking ground troops, and bonuses when engaging flyers), assault cannons, heavy bolters/missiles, AND a main long-barrel cannon. Three guns, unable to hover, aerial attack.
Nephilim - an air-to-ground non-hovering gunship, with EITHER an assault cannon stand-in or lascannons, heavy bolters, AND missiles. Three guns, unable to hover, ground attack.
Dark Talon - an air-to-ground hover bomber, with a single height powered cannon and a bunch of small arms bolters. Two guns and bombs, hovering, ground attack.

So, we have a ground strafing gunship with VTOL, an aerial supremacy dogfighter, an even more heavily armed pure strafing gunship, and a bomber with no medium strength weaponry.

Sounds like four unique roles to me.

"A Nephilim Jetfighter is a variant attack aircraft used exclusively by the Space Marines of the Dark Angels and their Unforgiven Successor Chapters. The Nephilim's primary role is as an atmospheric interceptor, helping to keep the skies clear over the field of battle, protecting their brethren on the ground from the threat of an aerial attack."
https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Nephilim_Jetfighter

The Nephilim is an INTERCEPTOR, like the stormhawk it is a air-to-air gunship at first while the Dark Talon is a air-to-ground. They don't have the same guns, but they have the same role. They have missiles designed to take down flyers.

Dark Taon with "single height powered cannon" lol ... It's a warp gun that create a crack, or "rift" into reality. It's an air to ground fighter, similarly to the stormtalon.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:

They have the same chassis. There's no more of a "light/heavy" difference than the difference between Predator turrets, or Razorback turrets.

do you know the hunter and the stalker don't have the same gun ?

Yeah, they don't have the same guns. Just like how Predator Executioners and Predator Destructors don't have the same guns, but fill the same combat role of a medium battle tank.

Hunters and Stalkers fill the same role - static AA tank. One goes about it with single target precision, the other goes about it with massed firepower, but both have the same core role.

There's more similarity between those two than there is between any two of the four aircraft mentioned above.

Thinking this way makes plague marines indentical to 1ksons, both are troops, tough etc. In fact why not roll in all csm in to one entry.

So happy. There are only a few unique units. It lets you put everything in one place and if you want to restrict a unit, you can say so in the codex. It means every chapter gets the rulebook plus their supplement.

Karol wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
This is something people have been asking for a very long time, and I think it's a positive change.

Space marine players asked for being made to buy 2 books instead of one codex for their army? Well I guess stranger things happen daily.

In fairness all the times I saw people ask for it they wanted 1 book not the supplement overcharging. Why they thought they'd get something that wasn't a ripoff is beyond me, it's as likely as them doing what I want...

 Galas wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I was agaisnt the unification in the form most people asking for it wanted it, basically stripping all special options because "muh bloat".

In this way we'll have a core codex with everything up to date and all the special stuff in supplements. So is the best approach. I like it. And if it means Dark Angel Centurions (I just love the models, sorry not sorry) I'm all over it.

That seems needlessly expensive to me. I have to buy a codex for my rules and then buy a supplement for all my units. Yay...

We are space marine players, we are subsidizing all the small armies. One has to accept it, is the price for having the most up to date rules and models.

What a load of horsegak. The other armies are small because the Space Marines get an overwhelming share of the relseases, fiction, and publicity. Don't kid yourself that you are doing Xenos players a favour.