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.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Am I the only one whose noticed that none of the primaris floaty tanks have the fly keyword on their data sheets? Another win for real tanks!

Depends what the 'Repulsor Field' keyword does. It might just be the -2 to enemy charge distances rule that's on current datasheets, or it might have picked up a rider effect.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:Yeah it looks like primaris tanks lost FLY, which is a good change.

Yeah, it gives something back to the Xenos factions for whom flying tanks used to be "their thing". Also puts them back on the ground with real tanks. No more flying over terrain for loyalist armour.

Vanican wrote:So, the Hammerfall Bunker couldn't just fire regular krak missles like us CSM peasents, oh no. It has to fire Str. 10 SUPERkrak missles instead, give me a break GW.

So another thing that can wound my Fellblade on 3s. If gw keeps this up they better have something nice for my 300+ ton monster in the Imperial Armour Compendium.

Ave Dominus Nox brother, if GW dosen't, your Fellblade and my Chaos Knights can go play canasta together in the Eye of Terror home for assisted living.

Voss wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Am I the only one whose noticed that none of the primaris floaty tanks have the fly keyword on their data sheets? Another win for real tanks!

Depends what the 'Repulsor Field' keyword does. It might just be the -2 to enemy charge distances rule that's on current datasheets, or it might have picked up a rider effect.

Judging from the flavor text I bet it's the -2 to chargers and some kind of ignore difficult terrain ability. It talked about how they move over swamps and rivers. As long as it isn't buildings I can live with that. Anyone see any rules for real tanks with real treads? Predators and Land Raiders?

Vanican wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:Yeah it looks like primaris tanks lost FLY, which is a good change.

Yeah, it gives something back to the Xenos factions for whom flying tanks used to be "their thing". Also puts them back on the ground with real tanks. No more flying over terrain for loyalist armour.

Vanican wrote:So, the Hammerfall Bunker couldn't just fire regular krak missles like us CSM peasents, oh no. It has to fire Str. 10 SUPERkrak missles instead, give me a break GW.

So another thing that can wound my Fellblade on 3s. If gw keeps this up they better have something nice for my 300+ ton monster in the Imperial Armour Compendium.

Ave Dominus Nox brother, if GW dosen't, your Fellblade and my Chaos Knights can go play canasta together in the Eye of Terror home for assisted living.

Can't retire the old girl after 10,000 years of grinding loyalist dogs beneath her treads just because she's a little less tough compared to some new thin bloods weapons. Gotta go out in a doomed last stand. It's the Eighth Legion way, after all. AVE DOMINUS NOX BROTHER!

Can someone magically make a rule appear to ignore the LoW restrictions on the Monolith please, so I can be excited for it again? Haha.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Can someone magically make a rule appear to ignore the LoW restrictions on the Monolith please, so I can be excited for it again? Haha.

GW really needs to examine LOWs, few if any LOWs are worth 3 CP

BrianDavion wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Can someone magically make a rule appear to ignore the LoW restrictions on the Monolith please, so I can be excited for it again? Haha.

GW really needs to examine LOWs, few if any LOWs are worth 3 CP

Heh, try 3CP + 880 points.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Can someone magically make a rule appear to ignore the LoW restrictions on the Monolith please, so I can be excited for it again? Haha.

GW really needs to examine LOWs, few if any LOWs are worth 3 CP

Heh, try 3CP + 880 points.

Oof, what’s that for?

Grav changed to damage 2 on 3+ target.

If someone was expecting a nerf to grav pods, this is it. Clearly you can no longer reroll the damage roll now, so the strat only rerolls to wound. Still good, but definitely less so.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Can someone magically make a rule appear to ignore the LoW restrictions on the Monolith please, so I can be excited for it again? Haha.

GW really needs to examine LOWs, few if any LOWs are worth 3 CP

Heh, try 3CP + 880 points.

Oof, what’s that for?

Hellforged Fellblade.

Anybody seen the data sheet for the Ironclad dreadnought? Chainfists are flat D3 against vehicles, wondering if dreadnought chainfists are getting something similar. My Contemptor would like to know.

Father of Future is gone.

Double rez from apot also gone.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Can someone magically make a rule appear to ignore the LoW restrictions on the Monolith please, so I can be excited for it again? Haha.

GW really needs to examine LOWs, few if any LOWs are worth 3 CP

Heh, try 3CP + 880 points.

not gonna lie dude, thats why when your comment on eradicators vs a fellblade I silently smirk. we all know you don't need eradicators for fellblades to be a horriable choice (a shame as it's a neat model, I want one myself(

Hover tanks no longer have a fly keyword.

Also, it looks like something happened to the -2 charge thing. It has been moved to a keyword, so probably tied to a stratagem now.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Can someone magically make a rule appear to ignore the LoW restrictions on the Monolith please, so I can be excited for it again? Haha.

GW really needs to examine LOWs, few if any LOWs are worth 3 CP

Heh, try 3CP + 880 points.

not gonna lie dude, thats why when your comment on eradicators vs a fellblade I silently smirk. we all know you don't need eradicators for fellblades to be a horriable choice (a shame as it's a neat model, I want one myself(

Yeah, the infuriating thing is that it's defensive profile makes it one of the best vehicles against eradicators, it's just Salamanders that cause it problems. But yeah, that price. And I had so much fun with it in 7th and during Index 8th before CA 2018 happened. *sigh*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Hover tanks no longer have a fly keyword.

Also, it looks like something happened to the -2 charge thing. It has been moved to a keyword, so probably tied to a stratagem now.

Or we're seeing a bit of a return to USRs. Notice there's no description of what combat squads does on the data sheets.

Do we know what the Smokescreen keyword does?

Have we seen a sheet for Reivers?

After a brief flick through the leaks, beyond eradicators and bladeguard, marines seems a fair bit more reasonable now?

 AduroT wrote:
Do we know what the Smokescreen keyword does?

Have we seen a sheet for Reivers?

Apparently there's a strategem that lets some vehicles pop smoke when they're targeted in their opponents shooting phase, so that's probably what "smoke screen" does. Reivers now remove obsec from enemy units. Not sure about stats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
After a brief flick through the leaks, beyond eradicators and bladeguard, marines seems a fair bit more reasonable now?

Agreed. Other than eradicators this looks pretty good.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Can someone magically make a rule appear to ignore the LoW restrictions on the Monolith please, so I can be excited for it again? Haha.

GW really needs to examine LOWs, few if any LOWs are worth 3 CP

Heh, try 3CP + 880 points.

Oof, what’s that for?

Hellforged Fellblade.

Anybody seen the data sheet for the Ironclad dreadnought? Chainfists are flat D3 against vehicles, wondering if dreadnought chainfists are getting something similar. My Contemptor would like to know.

Stompa says hi. Even worse.

tneva82 wrote:
Stompa says hi. Even worse.

This is true.

I rep[eat GW reaaaaaaaally needs to step back and re-examine Lords of war on a whole. the easiest solution, put 0-1 LOWs in the FOC for battalions and brigades.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Stompa says hi. Even worse.

This is true.

The stompas isn't a unit anymore, but an overpriced do it yourself plastic gardengnome.

BrianDavion wrote:I rep[eat GW reaaaaaaaally needs to step back and re-examine Lords of war on a whole. the easiest solution, put 0-1 LOWs in the FOC for battalions and brigades.

Agreed. It wasn't a problem with the combined arms detachment in 7th.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Stompa says hi. Even worse.

This is true.

The stompas isn't a unit anymore, but an overpriced do it yourself plastic gardengnome.

Also agreed.

BrianDavion wrote:
I rep[eat GW reaaaaaaaally needs to step back and re-examine Lords of war on a whole. the easiest solution, put 0-1 LOWs in the FOC for battalions and brigades.

This would be an easy and good solution for them to do. It would only need a quick FAQ.

 Vanican wrote:
So, the Hammerfall Bunker couldn't just fire regular krak missles like us CSM peasents, oh no. It has to fire Str. 10 SUPERkrak missles instead, give me a break GW.

Superkrak is old school - used to be a missile type in older editions.

Speaking of super heavies, any mention of the arguably worse unit in the game - the obelisk?

With many of the powerful synergies being nerfed in marines. I wonder if they'll tweak the combat doctrines as well... Has anybody seen them as yet (dev, tactical and assault).

Brigade getting a free LoW would make a lot of sense, meaning that you could bring them in specialised lists (6 troops +LoW would easily be 1-1.5k alone) and big games without feeling nerfed by doing so.

Battalion would probably be a bit too easy.

We should email the GW FAQ/Errata team with this suggestion tbh

Neknoh wrote:
Brigade getting a free LoW would make a lot of sense, meaning that you could bring them in specialised lists (6 troops +LoW would easily be 1-1.5k alone) and big games without feeling nerfed by doing so.

Battalion would probably be a bit too easy.

We should email the GW FAQ/Errata team with this suggestion tbh

Does seem like a good idea.

Neknoh wrote:
Brigade getting a free LoW would make a lot of sense, meaning that you could bring them in specialised lists (6 troops +LoW would easily be 1-1.5k alone) and big games without feeling nerfed by doing so.

Battalion would probably be a bit too easy.

We should email the GW FAQ/Errata team with this suggestion tbh

Making a brigade with a LOW using many armies would be near impossible. Try writing a csm brigade with one. Battalions would work better. You could take a LOW in 7th in a combined arms detachment with only one HQ and two troops as mandatory slots, and it wasn't a problem.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Neknoh wrote:
Brigade getting a free LoW would make a lot of sense, meaning that you could bring them in specialised lists (6 troops +LoW would easily be 1-1.5k alone) and big games without feeling nerfed by doing so.

Battalion would probably be a bit too easy.

We should email the GW FAQ/Errata team with this suggestion tbh

Making a brigade with a LOW using many armies would be near impossible. Try writing a csm brigade with one. Battalions would work better. You could take a LOW in 7th in a combined arms detachment with only one HQ and two troops as mandatory slots, and it wasn't a problem.

Cheapest csm brigade without relying on fw is 1284 I think but it is pure trash.

Again, allows armies such as Guard and Orks (which are more likely to bring a LoW at lower points) to bring a LoW in a 2k or 2.5k game without paying CP for it, while armies that have fewer of them in lore and not as much need for them on the tabletop can still bring them for CP at 2k, or bring them in as normal for 3k games with brigades.