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 don't see the game play aspect of 'bring your own terrain' catching on, but... for terrain junkies like me these box sets are B-E-A-utiful.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Sector Imperialis gameboard has vanished from the US webstore and is 'Last Chance to Buy' on the UK webstore.

You mean that gaudy, ghastly Realm of Battle thing?

Good.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:



A container and no crane? But wait...



A crane but no container?

I'd love to know what this kit actually comes with. If it's the regular Servo-Haulers kit with one Container sprue, then great, otherwise, this is confusing.

Its pretty clear if you look at the sprues for the existing kit. The large crane is a sprue by itself, while everything else including the trailer is on the other. This new box swaps the crane sprue for a container sprue.

I'll bet we'll see another battlezone range come out at some point in the future with reboxed sector mechanicus stuff, including that crane sprue.

 xttz wrote:
Its pretty clear if you look at the sprues for the existing kit.

The sprues don't tell you anything. They've shown us two images, one with the crane, and one with the container. Does it come with both sprues, or just one?

Dont get me wrong I can see some people with time o n their hands doing a narrative/crusade thing using these rules potentially maybe..??

But then those same people are likely going to be putting in lots a time making their own terrain thats just as good or better than GW generic ruin stuff.

So yeah I certainly don't see anyone paying attention to this at weekly FLGS pick up game. I maybe would have used the rules for some of the terrain if it was a free supplement or a WD thing and then if I liked it enough possibly buy some of the terrain to incorporate into terrain/basing projects... That's just me though.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

*Thanks for adding another layer of complexity GW. Just what this game needed...

8th edition players: Too little terrain rules please GW
9th edition players: Too much terrain rules please GW

 Irbis wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

*Thanks for adding another layer of complexity GW. Just what this game needed...

8th edition players: Too little terrain rules please GW
9th edition players: Too much terrain rules please GW

the 40k fanbase in a nut(case)shell

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Its pretty clear if you look at the sprues for the existing kit.

The sprues don't tell you anything. They've shown us two images, one with the crane, and one with the container. Does it come with both sprues, or just one?

Especially because, if I remember correctly, one of the aerials for the crane lives on the servohauler sprue...or vice versa.

You are quite correct (happened to have one of each sprue lying around. I should probably file them before they attract HBMC’s. They’re lovely creatures, but hoard all your terrain)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You are quite correct (happened to have one of each sprue lying around. I should probably file them before they attract HBMC’s. They’re lovely creatures, but hoard all your terrain)

I only reallly noticed after I sold the Conquest issue Crane on eBay (already having one from the initial release).

The buyer moaned about not having a full model. I could have pointed out that the eBay sale was for a 'Crane sprue as pictured' not a crane model but having the spare bit, I thought I'd forward on the extra bit from my bits box.

 Irbis wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

*Thanks for adding another layer of complexity GW. Just what this game needed...

8th edition players: Too little terrain rules please GW
9th edition players: Too much terrain rules please GW

8th didn't have too little terrain rules. It had too un-impactful terrain rules. They weren't enough to mitigate the hail of destruction and devastation that was units spending 9cp to quad-fire, fight twice in melee, fight when they die, get +3A, +2 to wound, reroll all to hits on all their attacks to have 150pts of unit scoop 500 points of army off the table in one go.

GW took one step forward with 9th, and then promptly took 2 steps back by making basically everything but Infantry just not get most terrain traits at all.

And then for good measure amp up the deadliness of the game another notch because one time a guy at the GW studio shot some eradicators at a tank and it didn't die So clearly this unit needs to deal 14.6 damage with average rolls in melta range vs standard tank defenses.

I just HATE when I shoot something at something else and my opponent doesn't have to immediately pull it off the table! It's soooooooooooo not fun!

the_scotsman wrote:


I just HATE when I shoot something at something else and my opponent doesn't have to immediately pull it off the table! It's soooooooooooo not fun!

To be fair, that has been the most vocal criticism throughout 8th Edition from just about every 40K player.

Stuff getting deadlier with new Strats, more shots on Clown-Haywire or Knight super-Meltas, random shoot-twice abilites on Leman Russ or Fire Prims, etc..

Everybody cheers.

Some actually impactful defensive abilities like alaitoc and everyone get's out the pitch forks.

Hell, even moving from 8th to 9th, people hailed GW's genius for removing hit penalties from moving vehicles, capping modifiers, etc... God forbid people would actually take an efficiency penalty / trade-off between damage output and manouvering.

It's not GW employees that always rail against stuff not always hitting/wounding/auto-killing everything it's pointed at. It's the players.

Some of that is how bass-ackwards "to-hit" modifiers were applied, though - why does shooting your fast-moving or stealthy unit make my plasma gun more likely to explode?

Why do re-rolls kick in before the modifiers, leaving you (in most cases) unable to reroll certain values which both players know will miss, but which are a hit at the step where rerolls are determined?

Destroyer article up for today.

Notable bit:

What’s more, the damage output of Destroyer units is even more consistent when in range of their alphas – the fallen nobles that are Skorpekh Lords and Lokhust Lords – thanks to the United in Destruction aura ability.

Lokhust Lord confirmed.

They also meantioned the Lokhust class of destroyers, so odds are on a recut/redo of the kit and not just the Lokhust Heavy model coming along.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/23/fear-the-reapers-the-necron-destroyer-cult/

New article about the Destroyer Cults

"The fallen nobles that are Skorpekh Lords and Lokhust Lords"
So either the old Destroyer Lord stays and is renamed to Lokhust Lord, or we will get even more new models

Also the fact they apparently forgot they already showed us the datasheets for the Heavy Lokhust Destroyer as the "new" weapon stats are the same (except the Blase keyword)

OH. The heavy destroyer's emetic weapon has blast.

Which does the minimum 3 hits against units of 6-10, when it already has a minimum of 3 from being a 3d3 weapon, and then jumps to 9 against 11+ models. No, still bad.


---
Still nothing to indicate that te locust lord isn't just the current destroyer lord.

---
Very useless article overall. Thin layer known fluff over rules we already know (except blast) and didn't clear up any ambiguity,

Matrindur wrote:
"The fallen nobles that are Skorpekh Lords and Lokhust Lords"
So either the old Destroyer Lord stays and is renamed to Lokhust Lord, or we will get even more new models

It's still a toss up as to which it will be. While the old Warriors and the Monolith have been removed from the online store, the Flayed Ones which GW has confirmed as getting a new plastic kit are still listed (albeit as temporarily out of stock).

With the codex just a few weeks away (and preorders a week less than that), I'd think that an article on destroyers would show off a new model if there was one.


Thouh I was surprised by new flayed ones. Maybe their marketing department is just that weird.

Not showing the 4/5 model kits that we expect to be coming at some point yet gives them more to show us later. I expect the Necron release to be split much like the Sisters was, so holding off on showing anything for them right now doesn't seem like too bad a concept.
Considering there is still a huge range refresh happening, splitting releases in this way works for me.

 Ghaz wrote:

Matrindur wrote:
"The fallen nobles that are Skorpekh Lords and Lokhust Lords"
So either the old Destroyer Lord stays and is renamed to Lokhust Lord, or we will get even more new models

It's still a toss up as to which it will be. While the old Warriors and the Monolith have been removed from the online store, the Flayed Ones which GW has confirmed as getting a new plastic kit are still listed (albeit as temporarily out of stock).

Yeah - I'm about 70% convinced that this is GW experimenting with which approach will sell more models – update the kit with a great new sculpt and give it 1 or 2 new (and powerful) weapons that you can only get in the new box (warriors/Monolith) VS. create a *nearly* identical parallel unit with similar weaponry and nerf or otherwise just ignore the old models until they drift off to Legends.

In addition to the seemingly unnecessary name change there's also the fact that the Heavy Gauss is changing into some weird autocannon-ish type gun. So they can say - ah yes these old Heavy destroyers are now a mid-range Infantry hunter - you have to get the new Lokhurst destroyers for the tank killing gun.

Voss wrote:
OH. The heavy destroyer's emetic weapon has blast.

Which does the minimum 3 hits against units of 6-10, when it already has a minimum of 3 from being a 3d3 weapon, and then jumps to 9 against 11+ models. No, still bad.


---
Still nothing to indicate that te locust lord isn't just the current destroyer lord.

---
Very useless article overall. Thin layer known fluff over rules we already know (except blast) and didn't clear up any ambiguity,

Up the emetic weapon to damage 2 and it suddenly is less rubbish, not sure what it needs to become good as such, blast wasn't it though.

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Matrindur wrote:
"The fallen nobles that are Skorpekh Lords and Lokhust Lords"
So either the old Destroyer Lord stays and is renamed to Lokhust Lord, or we will get even more new models

It's still a toss up as to which it will be. While the old Warriors and the Monolith have been removed from the online store, the Flayed Ones which GW has confirmed as getting a new plastic kit are still listed (albeit as temporarily out of stock).

Yeah - I'm about 70% convinced that this is GW experimenting with which approach will sell more models – update the kit with a great new sculpt and give it 1 or 2 new (and powerful) weapons that you can only get in the new box (warriors/Monolith) VS. create a *nearly* identical parallel unit with similar weaponry and nerf or otherwise just ignore the old models until they drift off to Legends.

In addition to the seemingly unnecessary name change there's also the fact that the Heavy Gauss is changing into some weird autocannon-ish type gun. So they can say - ah yes these old Heavy destroyers are now a mid-range Infantry hunter - you have to get the new Lokhurst destroyers for the tank killing gun.

Yep, that's gw's typical cash grab tactic: People have bought most of model x they're going to. So we nerf the living out of model x! Then re roll out a most expen$ive replacement! MO' MONEY! MO' MONEY! MO' MONEY! Just look at the monolith on 8e.

Yeah, if I have to get some new models because the old ones get nerfed to death someone's gonna get money for them but it ain't gonna be GW...

They said the destroyers are sub divided into four types, Lokhust being one of them. We already know what the other three are.

Therefore, the destroyers from previous editions have been effectively replaced by Lokhusts.

Also, I noticed something odd about the wording for the destroyer rules: can I only reroll a single die that scored a one, or can I reroll all ones?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
They said the destroyers are sub divided into four types, Lokhust being one of them. We already know what the other three are.

Therefore, the destroyers from previous editions have been effectively replaced by Lokhusts.

Also, I noticed something odd about the wording for the destroyer rules: can I only reroll a single die that scored a one, or can I reroll all ones?

The standard rules work by each attack being rolled separately, therefore you can reroll all your attacks.

There could be a difference like Lokhast destroyers and lokhast heavy destroyers

 Matt Swain wrote:

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Matrindur wrote:
"The fallen nobles that are Skorpekh Lords and Lokhust Lords"
So either the old Destroyer Lord stays and is renamed to Lokhust Lord, or we will get even more new models

It's still a toss up as to which it will be. While the old Warriors and the Monolith have been removed from the online store, the Flayed Ones which GW has confirmed as getting a new plastic kit are still listed (albeit as temporarily out of stock).

Yeah - I'm about 70% convinced that this is GW experimenting with which approach will sell more models – update the kit with a great new sculpt and give it 1 or 2 new (and powerful) weapons that you can only get in the new box (warriors/Monolith) VS. create a *nearly* identical parallel unit with similar weaponry and nerf or otherwise just ignore the old models until they drift off to Legends.

In addition to the seemingly unnecessary name change there's also the fact that the Heavy Gauss is changing into some weird autocannon-ish type gun. So they can say - ah yes these old Heavy destroyers are now a mid-range Infantry hunter - you have to get the new Lokhurst destroyers for the tank killing gun.

Yep, that's gw's typical cash grab tactic: People have bought most of model x they're going to. So we nerf the living out of model x! Then re roll out a most expen$ive replacement! MO' MONEY! MO' MONEY! MO' MONEY! Just look at the monolith on 8e.

Yeah, if I have to get some new models because the old ones get nerfed to death someone's gonna get money for them but it ain't gonna be GW...

Yeah! Like how they put out the new warrior kit, and the NEW weapon that they packaged in it instead of the one that everyone already had was...

....

...oh wait it was worse, at best some thing you'd take in the niche situation of doing something to deep strike warriors so they'd actually get to use it.

Their original gun is almost always better as it keeps the warriors safer from melee and you make up for any loss in damage in the fact that you can attack with it out to 24".

...Huh.

And, hold on, it seems like the wholly new weapon that they just gave to Heavy Destroyers is actually the same. The only gun you'd ever dream of using is the single shot anti-tank weapon from the old heavy destroyer model.

How does that work?

How old is this? Looks cool

the_scotsman wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Matrindur wrote:
"The fallen nobles that are Skorpekh Lords and Lokhust Lords"
So either the old Destroyer Lord stays and is renamed to Lokhust Lord, or we will get even more new models

It's still a toss up as to which it will be. While the old Warriors and the Monolith have been removed from the online store, the Flayed Ones which GW has confirmed as getting a new plastic kit are still listed (albeit as temporarily out of stock).

Yeah - I'm about 70% convinced that this is GW experimenting with which approach will sell more models – update the kit with a great new sculpt and give it 1 or 2 new (and powerful) weapons that you can only get in the new box (warriors/Monolith) VS. create a *nearly* identical parallel unit with similar weaponry and nerf or otherwise just ignore the old models until they drift off to Legends.

In addition to the seemingly unnecessary name change there's also the fact that the Heavy Gauss is changing into some weird autocannon-ish type gun. So they can say - ah yes these old Heavy destroyers are now a mid-range Infantry hunter - you have to get the new Lokhurst destroyers for the tank killing gun.

Yep, that's gw's typical cash grab tactic: People have bought most of model x they're going to. So we nerf the living out of model x! Then re roll out a most expen$ive replacement! MO' MONEY! MO' MONEY! MO' MONEY! Just look at the monolith on 8e.

Yeah, if I have to get some new models because the old ones get nerfed to death someone's gonna get money for them but it ain't gonna be GW...

Yeah! Like how they put out the new warrior kit, and the NEW weapon that they packaged in it instead of the one that everyone already had was...

....

...oh wait it was worse, at best some thing you'd take in the niche situation of doing something to deep strike warriors so they'd actually get to use it.

Their original gun is almost always better as it keeps the warriors safer from melee and you make up for any loss in damage in the fact that you can attack with it out to 24".

...Huh.

And, hold on, it seems like the wholly new weapon that they just gave to Heavy Destroyers is actually the same. The only gun you'd ever dream of using is the single shot anti-tank weapon from the old heavy destroyer model.

How does that work?

I'm not saying they always make the new option more powerful - sometimes just the fact that it's new and untested makes it look appealing and helps sell more models. I don't even think it's necessarily a bad thing. It often gives you a reason to buy a cool model because you can keep using your old ones and build the new ones with the new weapon options. To act as if they don't do that is just disingenuous.

I just said that IF they did keep the old version of the destroyers around while also introducing the Lokhurst, then I suspect it would be an experiment to see which sells more - and a bit more underhanded IMO.

To address your other points:
1) Gauss reapers - Regardless of the power level and whether or not it will synergize well with the updated dynastic codes, smaller board sizes and demands to be more aggressive on the board - it's still a new weapon only available in that kit providing an incentive to get it as opposed to simply releasing an updated warrior box with identical weaponry.
1-b) Also the new monolith which is coming with mini-death rays...
2) If they release the new plastic lokhurst destroyers as outright replacements of the existing destroyers then yes, some people will just keep using their old Heavy Destroyers as Lokhurst with the Gauss Destructor. But IF (big if) they are testing out a new method and they keep the old destroyers in the codex or move them straight to Legends, it's going to be a lot harder to run old H.D. as the new Lockhurst - even in casual games.

After reading the article I'm actually more convinced that these are going simply be a replacement for existing destroyers - the only thing that's still confusing me is why they bothered to give them a weird new Heavy Gauss gun - and if they did want to make a different & more powerful version of it - why did they change it so much for the Triarch Stalker?

John D Law wrote:
How old is this? Looks cool

That's obviously just a Photoshopped picture of the new Heavy Intercessors.