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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Besides, Primaris don't make great use of Lascannons and Missile Launchers. They've got their own fancier (and more trademarkable) versions ("Las-Talon").

Ah, yes, the sneaky 6th edition Primaris who waited a whole decade before jumping out, eh?

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Stormhawk-Interceptor-2020

 Irbis wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Besides, Primaris don't make great use of Lascannons and Missile Launchers. They've got their own fancier (and more trademarkable) versions ("Las-Talon").

Ah, yes, the sneaky 6th edition Primaris who waited a whole decade before jumping out, eh?

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Stormhawk-Interceptor-2020

Stormhawk was a late 7th edition kit.

It is sad what they did to the IF doctrine. They should have made it work on STR 6 weapons or make it a new rule instead. I don’t think anyone really ever loved it. In fact, most hate the IF supplement since it seems to be so poorly designed and not well thought out. Here are a few options for a redesigned rule:

-In the tactical doctrine IF bolter weapons can reroll hit rolls of 1 (Bolter Fusillades light)

-in the tactical doctrine wound rolls of 6 on bolter weapons does an additional -1 AP (storm of fire light)

-in the tactical doctrine IF units ignore -1 AP weapons while in cover (Architect of war light)

All much more interesting and better suited for the IF than the current or previous versions.

I have to say, aside from the ridiculous shenanigans for the various Primaris Intercessors, Captains, and Lieutenants loadouts, the new datasheets + points layout is fantastic and intuitive.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Stormhawk was a late 7th edition kit.

And pretty easy to miss, given that a friend of mine said to me last Saturday "When did the Stormhawk become a thing?".

 Sasori wrote:
Blood Angels are looking super scary now. Sanguinary Guard seem nuts.

I agree they look really cool. My only annoyance is that I’ll mostly be playing crusade with power, so I have to take either 4 or 10 of them. For some reason they didn’t have any in between option even though that’s a huge leap in unit size haha.

broxus wrote:
It is sad what they did to the IF doctrine. They should have made it work on STR 6 weapons or make it a new rule instead. I don’t think anyone really ever loved it. In fact, most hate the IF supplement since it seems to be so poorly designed and not well thought out. Here are a few options for a redesigned rule:

-In the tactical doctrine IF bolter weapons can reroll hit rolls of 1 (Bolter Fusillades light)

-in the tactical doctrine wound rolls of 6 on bolter weapons does an additional -1 AP (storm of fire light)

-in the tactical doctrine IF units ignore -1 AP weapons while in cover (Architect of war light)

All much more interesting and better suited for the IF than the current or previous versions.

It's great to see this constructive attitude.
But I think those rules are too weak and would not change IF playstyle as other Doctrines do.
Look at how impactful RR 1s + no m&s penalties, count as stationary, +1 to wound for melta+flammer, are.
I'm actually happier with what we have (and I don't like it a lot ).

I can't suggest something good right now, so maybe I shouldn't trash your ideas too much

 AduroT wrote:
Since the Imperial Fists doctrine applies to so few shots now, what if they upped it to d3?

Or flat two, so that their lascanon have the melta rule but without the range restriction .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Since the Imperial Fists doctrine applies to so few shots now, what if they upped it to d3?

Or flat two, so that their lascanon have the melta rule but without the range restriction .

Heavy Eradicators at 6 + d6 damage in melta range?

For those that have seen the leaked dex, have you noticed a point discrepancy from the master of the chapter in the front and the back of the book?

 Mulletdude wrote:
For those that have seen the leaked dex, have you noticed a point discrepancy from the master of the chapter in the front and the back of the book?

Spoiler:

No idea how that could have happened but the bottom points should be the real ones going by Power Levels

 AduroT wrote:

 Knute wrote:
Has anyone noticed that in the Necron Codex, Tomb Blades can take Particle Beamers but there aren't any points listed for Particle Beamers in the back of the codex?

Does the 25ppm base cost for Tomb Blades include the Particle Beamer?

Bueller?

Points include base wargear and weapons now, and just list a cost to upgrade to something else.

You say 'now' as though that wasn't the way points worked for literal decades before GW totally ballsed them up last edition...

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Since the Imperial Fists doctrine applies to so few shots now, what if they upped it to d3?

Or flat two, so that their lascanon have the melta rule but without the range restriction .

Heavy Eradicators at 6 + d6 damage in melta range?

I mean, if you’re in Heavy Eradicator Melta range you’re already boned, what’s a bit more overkill?
If you’re in that range for the turn one Devastator Doctrine then it’s probably your own fault and you deserve it.
If it’s not turn one, it’s costing them two CP to do it at least.

broxus wrote:
It is sad what they did to the IF doctrine. They should have made it work on STR 6 weapons or make it a new rule instead. I don’t think anyone really ever loved it. In fact, most hate the IF supplement since it seems to be so poorly designed and not well thought out. Here are a few options for a redesigned rule:

-In the tactical doctrine IF bolter weapons can reroll hit rolls of 1 (Bolter Fusillades light)

-in the tactical doctrine wound rolls of 6 on bolter weapons does an additional -1 AP (storm of fire light)

-in the tactical doctrine IF units ignore -1 AP weapons while in cover (Architect of war light)

All much more interesting and better suited for the IF than the current or previous versions.

they choose STR 7 because that's where the weapons generally stop being rapid fire and start being single shot. they don't want IFs spammin D2 assault cannons etc.

why does everyone think being IF makes you better at destroying fortifications? That's the Iron Warriors territory. So why would knowing how to hit a building better make your weapons better than everyone elses?

Fluff since IA in the 90s has IF and IW both equally adept at siegecraft and fortification. Pretty hard to master one w/o being intimately familiar with the other.

 Mulletdude wrote:
For those that have seen the leaked dex, have you noticed a point discrepancy from the master of the chapter in the front and the back of the book?

They're different enough that that's not going to be typos. One of those pics is going to be from an older, test version of the book (if not both).

 nintura wrote:
why does everyone think being IF makes you better at destroying fortifications? That's the Iron Warriors territory. So why would knowing how to hit a building better make your weapons better than everyone elses?

The knowledge of how to build a better fortification also grants the knowledge of how to better tear one down... it's long been the case that both IF and IW are great at both.

nintura wrote:why does everyone think being IF makes you better at destroying fortifications? That's the Iron Warriors territory. So why would knowing how to hit a building better make your weapons better than everyone elses?

This guy doesn't know the fluff.

JWBS wrote:Fluff since IA in the 90s has IF and IW both equally adept at siegecraft and fortification. Pretty hard to master one w/o being intimately familiar with the other.

Super Ready wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:
For those that have seen the leaked dex, have you noticed a point discrepancy from the master of the chapter in the front and the back of the book?

They're different enough that that's not going to be typos. One of those pics is going to be from an older, test version of the book (if not both).

 nintura wrote:
why does everyone think being IF makes you better at destroying fortifications? That's the Iron Warriors territory. So why would knowing how to hit a building better make your weapons better than everyone elses?

The knowledge of how to build a better fortification also grants the knowledge of how to better tear one down... it's long been the case that both IF and IW are great at both.

These two do.
IF and Iron Warriors are mirror images from each other.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nintura wrote:why does everyone think being IF makes you better at destroying fortifications? That's the Iron Warriors territory. So why would knowing how to hit a building better make your weapons better than everyone elses?

This guy doesn't know the fluff.

JWBS wrote:Fluff since IA in the 90s has IF and IW both equally adept at siegecraft and fortification. Pretty hard to master one w/o being intimately familiar with the other.

Super Ready wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:
For those that have seen the leaked dex, have you noticed a point discrepancy from the master of the chapter in the front and the back of the book?

They're different enough that that's not going to be typos. One of those pics is going to be from an older, test version of the book (if not both).

 nintura wrote:
why does everyone think being IF makes you better at destroying fortifications? That's the Iron Warriors territory. So why would knowing how to hit a building better make your weapons better than everyone elses?

The knowledge of how to build a better fortification also grants the knowledge of how to better tear one down... it's long been the case that both IF and IW are great at both.

These two do.
IF and Iron Warriors are mirror images from each other.

This is shameful, GW is going to make so much money off of players buying models that are temporarily overpowered. They usually make money off of this because of a new codex buffing a unit for an entire edition, that is acceptable. This time around they are using a mass FAQ which is temporary! They are targeting their largest market which is Space Marines with this temporary buff tactic. I don't mind players taking whatever they feel is strongest its just the idea that it is going to change and people are going to buy all of these models for a temporary high due to a FAQ.

Has it already been pointed out that the points for chapter command are different in the point summary section than in the main rules section?

 Crimson wrote:
Has it already been pointed out that the points for chapter command are different in the point summary section than in the main rules section?

Maybe it's intentional. We should wait and see.

There's some weird typos like that in the necron codex too - for example the command barge's base loadout on the datasheet is the gauss cannon, with the option to take a tesla instead, but the points cost says you pay an extra 5 for gauss, and doesn't list a points cost for tesla at all. Seems clear the intent is for gauss to cost 5 points more than tesla, but they've listed it two different ways on the sheet and the points area.

yukishiro1 wrote:
There's some weird typos like that in the necron codex too - for example the command barge's base loadout on the datasheet is the gauss cannon, with the option to take a tesla instead, but the points cost says you pay an extra 5 for gauss, and doesn't list a points cost for tesla at all. Seems clear the intent is for gauss to cost 5 points more than tesla, but they've listed it two different ways on the sheet and the points area.

GW can always be counted on being consistent with their disregard for proof reading

yukishiro1 wrote:
There's some weird typos like that in the necron codex too - for example the command barge's base loadout on the datasheet is the gauss cannon, with the option to take a tesla instead, but the points cost says you pay an extra 5 for gauss, and doesn't list a points cost for tesla at all. Seems clear the intent is for gauss to cost 5 points more than tesla, but they've listed it two different ways on the sheet and the points area.

We (and I include myself) have been assuming that default wargear doesn't cost points, but a closer look shows that isn't true (DA terminator squads have to pay for their default powerfists, for example, but the sergeant gets his power sword for free, since it isn't listed)

The point value section has a header paragraph with an explanation:

You must then add points for each weapon, or other item of wargear, that is included in that unit if it is listed in that's unit's entry (weapons and other wargear not listed in a units entry cost no additional points to include in that unit)

So if it has a price, you pay it, default gear or not.
So the CCB's tesla is free, and the gauss costs 5 points. It doesn't actually matter which is the 'upgrade.'

So if I replace the default weapons with the option, it's actually cheaper.

Yes. This is a clear and elegant way of writing rules.

Voss wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
There's some weird typos like that in the necron codex too - for example the command barge's base loadout on the datasheet is the gauss cannon, with the option to take a tesla instead, but the points cost says you pay an extra 5 for gauss, and doesn't list a points cost for tesla at all. Seems clear the intent is for gauss to cost 5 points more than tesla, but they've listed it two different ways on the sheet and the points area.

We (and I include myself) have been assuming that default wargear doesn't cost points, but a closer look shows that isn't true (DA terminator squads have to pay for their default powerfists, for example, but the sergeant gets his power sword for free, since it isn't listed)

The point value section has a header paragraph with an explanation:

You must then add points for each weapon, or other item of wargear, that is included in that unit if it is listed in that's unit's entry (weapons and other wargear not listed in a units entry cost no additional points to include in that unit)

So if it has a price, you pay it, default gear or not.
So the CCB's tesla is free, and the gauss costs 5 points. It doesn't actually matter which is the 'upgrade.'

Right...but the presentation of that is awkward and unintuitive. Why give you the points cost of what isn't the base layout, and then a points premium for what is the base layout? Either the tesla should be the base layout, or the gauss should and the tesla should be listed as -5 points.

It's weird because in general the new layout is way easier to use. But stuff like that is just weirdly confusing for no gain.

So basically they list the cheapest loadout instead of the default. Then of you use the default loadout you add points. So, they think we know how to do addition but not subtraction?

Or the cheapest loadout is now the default, you could just say that instead.

 Redemption wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've got to say, I'm liking the change to Lightning Claws. TH/SS is no longer the braindead, go-to option. They are both viable now.

What's the change to Lightning Claws?

You now get an extra attack for each one, so +2 attacks for a pair.

Interesting, thanks!

JWBS wrote:
Or the cheapest loadout is now the default, you could just say that instead.

But not the default on the Datasheet.
Because why go all the way when you can half-ass it and confuse people.