Necron and Space Marine Codex and upcoming releases discussion

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.

**Marshal Loss**

Ghaz wrote:
TalonZahn wrote:
Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.

The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.

Good pickup - likely an intentional move by GW so fans with Knights of Blood armies can still play their forces in the wake of the KoB's destruction

**TalonZahn**

Probably along the same line as those Purple Dorn kids.... can't recall their name at the moment.

Soul Drinkers?

They got brought back as all Primaris Chapter.

**Ghaz**

Marshal Loss wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
TalonZahn wrote:
Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.

The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.

Good pickup - likely an intentional move by GW so fans with Knights of Blood armies can still play their forces in the wake of the KoB's destruction

Since the Knights of Blood only show up in the fluff in connection with the Devastation of Baal where they're destroyed, I'm pretty sure anyone who painted a Knights of the Blood force weren't concerned if they were an 'active' chapter in the current background.

**Marshal Loss**

Ghaz wrote:
Marshal Loss wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
TalonZahn wrote:
Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.

The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.

Good pickup - likely an intentional move by GW so fans with Knights of Blood armies can still play their forces in the wake of the KoB's destruction

Since the Knights of Blood only show up in the fluff in connection with the Devastation of Baal where they're destroyed, I'm pretty sure anyone who painted a Knights of the Blood force weren't concerned if they were an 'active' chapter in the current background.

They'd shown up previously in the 5th ed BA book, and their destruction wasn't stated until the publication of DoB, so I'm sure there were fans who were concerned with them not being an "active" chapter. Regardless, they've also appeared in other lore unconnected with the Devastation of Baal.

**BrianDavion**

Ghaz wrote:
TalonZahn wrote:
Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.

The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.

it could well be intentional. when a chapter dies it's heraldry is often re-used (it's often a way to quietly honor the dead chapter without nesscarily recylcing the name) a good example of this is the mentors legion who inherited the colour scheme of the star scorpions.

I could see Dante quietly arranging for the knights of blood's colour scheme to be re-used as a way to honor their sacrifice.

**Theophony**

BrianDavion wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
TalonZahn wrote:
Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.

The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.

it could well be intentional. when a chapter dies it's heraldry is often re-used (it's often a way to quietly honor the dead chapter without nesscarily recylcing the name) a good example of this is the mentors legion who inherited the colour scheme of the star scorpions.

I could see Dante quietly arranging for the knights of blood's colour scheme to be re-used as a way to honor their sacrifice.

Honor their sacrifice and cover up the loss of a chapter in the process. People who saw the old symbol or read stories of their exploits will see the emblem and think the chapter is the same and just some error in the history being told. Anyone linking the symbol to the exploits of the fallen chapter will be purged and the only things known in the future will be that the chapter has thrived for more millennia than they actual have. Revisionist history with an inquisitorial seal.

**Ghaz**

Marshal Loss wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
Marshal Loss wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
TalonZahn wrote:
Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.

The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.

Good pickup - likely an intentional move by GW so fans with Knights of Blood armies can still play their forces in the wake of the KoB's destruction

Since the Knights of Blood only show up in the fluff in connection with the Devastation of Baal where they're destroyed, I'm pretty sure anyone who painted a Knights of the Blood force weren't concerned if they were an 'active' chapter in the current background.

They'd shown up previously in the 5th ed BA book, and their destruction wasn't stated until the publication of DoB, so I'm sure there were fans who were concerned with them not being an "active" chapter. Regardless, they've also appeared in other lore unconnected with the Devastation of Baal.

The writing was on the wall, so to speak, in their first appearance in the background in the 5th edition codex. One which was to be proven true.

**AngryAngel80**

Come rules leaks for the bloated ones, so close to turkey day, release the leaks. Think of the nurglings.

**Marshal Loss**

Ghaz wrote:
Marshal Loss wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
Marshal Loss wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
TalonZahn wrote:
Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.

The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.

Good pickup - likely an intentional move by GW so fans with Knights of Blood armies can still play their forces in the wake of the KoB's destruction

Since the Knights of Blood only show up in the fluff in connection with the Devastation of Baal where they're destroyed, I'm pretty sure anyone who painted a Knights of the Blood force weren't concerned if they were an 'active' chapter in the current background.

They'd shown up previously in the 5th ed BA book, and their destruction wasn't stated until the publication of DoB, so I'm sure there were fans who were concerned with them not being an "active" chapter. Regardless, they've also appeared in other lore unconnected with the Devastation of Baal.

The writing was on the wall, so to speak, in their first appearance in the background in the 5th edition codex. One which was to be proven true.

For sure, but there is a huge difference between the writing being on the wall, which is extremely common in 40k to the point that it's hardly noteworthy, and actual destruction. Regardless, the above point (that it would have been perfectly reasonable for fans to be disappointed with their demise) clearly stands.

BrianDavion wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
TalonZahn wrote:
Love the Flesh Tearers Bladeguard Vet, and there's anew Successor Chapter in there too.

The Cruor Blades look a lot like the Knights of Blood. Even their Chapter badge's are near identical.

it could well be intentional. when a chapter dies it's heraldry is often re-used (it's often a way to quietly honor the dead chapter without nesscarily recylcing the name) a good example of this is the mentors legion who inherited the colour scheme of the star scorpions.

I could see Dante quietly arranging for the knights of blood's colour scheme to be re-used as a way to honor their sacrifice.

Dante flat out says in Destruction of Baal that he won't rebuild the chapter; could even just be the High Lords or w/e doing the same thing, like with the Star Scorpions example you cited. Plenty of justification either way!

e: grammar

**Gadzilla666**

Am I the only one who noticed that none of the Blood Angels specific dreadnoughts are CORE? I expected the libby dread not to have it, because it's a character, but why not Furiosas?

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Come rules leaks for the bloated ones, so close to turkey day, release the leaks. Think of the nurglings.

I'll second that. Can't wait to see the first Chaos codex of 9th edition.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Honestly if GW were writing to fluff, Death Company variants wouldn't be core for the same reason Flayed Ones and Destroyers aren't core for Necrons.

I expect preferential treatment though because Blood Angels players will be whiners and are super used to being treated special.

**Marshal Loss**

What will happen to CSM Plagues when the DG book drops? Will they benefit form the 2W/inevitable weapon changes - and what about other units, if the DG keep them (e.g. "Chaos Lord" or "Possessed"). Very curious.

**Laughing Man**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly if GW were writing to fluff, Death Company variants wouldn't be core for the same reason Flayed Ones and Destroyers aren't core for Necrons.

I expect preferential treatment though because Blood Angels players will be whiners and are super used to being treated special.

Death Company units are core. Death Company characters, less so.

**H.B.M.C.**

Yes, but they shouldn't be.

**Laughing Man**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yes, but they shouldn't be.

Debatable given Veterans and Devastators have the keyword as well, but honestly it would be reasonable to lose it and just make DC characters buff off the Death Company keyword rather than both Death Company and Core. On the other, the current setup keeps them from buffing DC Dreadnoughts or themselves still, so I get why they did it this way.

**tneva82**

Laughing Man wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yes, but they shouldn't be.

Debatable given Veterans and Devastators have the keyword as well, but honestly it would be reasonable to lose it and just make DC characters buff off the Death Company keyword rather than both Death Company and Core. On the other, the current setup keeps them from buffing DC Dreadnoughts or themselves still, so I get why they did it this way.

Unit that BA doesn't fluffiwise WANT to see on field and whose sole purpose is to die in battle doesn't exactly feel like core...

But the supplement does have bunch of nerfs. No more 3d6" charge(+1 to hit and can choose which modifiers to charge roll apply), the redeployment stratagem for jump packs happens with turn delay, death company pre-game move capped at 12"(and 9" away from enemy), no "can't overshoot me on charge" relic(though can get "can fall back and charge and reroll charges" special issue wargear). And heroic intervene stratagem now only works on sanguinary guard.

Still going to be strong as they started among top dogs of marines. One thing still unclear is did sanguinary guard get nerfed at all from one of the most cost efficient units in the game from the faq version.

**Laughing Man**

tneva82 wrote:

Unit that BA doesn't fluffiwise WANT to see on field and whose sole purpose is to die in battle doesn't exactly feel like core...

But the supplement does have bunch of nerfs. No more 3d6" charge(+1 to hit and can choose which modifiers to charge roll apply), the redeployment stratagem for jump packs happens with turn delay, death company pre-game move capped at 12"(and 9" away from enemy), no "can't overshoot me on charge" relic(though can get "can fall back and charge and reroll charges" special issue wargear). And heroic intervene stratagem now only works on sanguinary guard.

Still going to be strong as they started among top dogs of marines. One thing still unclear is did sanguinary guard get nerfed at all from one of the most cost efficient units in the game from the faq version.

Sure, but they also have a ton of synergy even in the fluff with the Chaplains, who have a core restriction on their prayers. Would be pretty silly to have their chaplain escort unable to do anything with them.

Bit sad about the nerfs, but on the other hand there's a lot of neat stuff in there as well like doubling up on WL traits and giving a sergeant a relic. Plus the accuracy bonus on the new Descent of Angels is nice, although the anti-synergy with our chapter tactic isn't.

Doesn't look like SG got nerfed, as they're still 30ppm, although power fists actually cost points now instead of being the same cost as the sanguine options.

**Jidmah**

CORE is an abstract game mechanic to control aura interaction and is in no way related to fluff.

Get this into your heads people, we don't need to do a full analysis of the heresy each time GW gives someone a keyword.

**H.B.M.C.**

Laughing Man wrote:
Debatable given Veterans and Devastators have the keyword as well...

And they should. This has nothing to do with them. The example given was Destroyers, who are not Core, and how this should apply to Death Company as well.

The Necron non-Core units all make sense from a fluff perspective:

1. Praetorians aren't part of the standard Necron command structure. Not Core.
2. Canoptek units are automotons, therefore not Core.
3. Flayed Ones are diseased Necrons who other Necrons don't want to be around. Not Core.
4. Destroyers are a cult that are slowly losing their minds to wanton bloodthirsty destruction. Also not Core.

Blood Angels have parallels with three of those things:

1. They're not part of the standard Blood Angel company structure, being ad-hoc units made of those that have fallen to their flaw.
2. They're are technically 'diseased' and kept apart from the standard Blood Angels (although obviously BAs aren't afraid of DC Marines, and actually venerate them for their sacrifice, intentional or otherwise).
3. They have lost their minds to wanton bloodthirsty destruction.

I don't know why you're bringing up Devastators or Veterans. These are regular Marines. They don't exist in the same number as, say, Tactical Marines or Intercessors, but they are core to a Marine force. Death Company, by their very nature, are not. Some Blood Angel armies might be lucky enough to have no Death Company in their ranks come the start of a battle.

They should benefit from Strats/abilities that are specific to them, and not to Core units. Chaplains can buff them in the same way that Destroyer Lords buff Destroyers, but not Core Necron units.

Anyway, that's the point of view that I'm trying to get across.

**Dudeface**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Laughing Man wrote:
Debatable given Veterans and Devastators have the keyword as well...
And they should. This has nothing to do with them. The example given was Destroyers, who are not Core, and how this should apply to Death Company as well.

The Necron non-Core units all make sense from a fluff perspective:

1. Praetorians aren't part of the standard Necron command structure. Not Core.
2. Canoptek units are automotons, therefore not Core.
3. Flayed Ones are diseased Necrons who other Necrons don't want to be around. Not Core.
4. Destroyers are a cult that are slowly losing their minds to wanton bloodthirsty destruction. Also not Core.

Blood Angels have parallels with three of those things:

1. They're not part of the standard Blood Angel company structure, being ad-hoc units made of those that have fallen to their flaw.
2. They're are technically 'diseased' and kept apart from the standard Blood Angels (although obviously BAs aren't afraid of DC Marines, and actually venerate them for their sacrifice, intentional or otherwise).
3. They have lost their minds to wanton bloodthirsty destruction.

I don't know why you're bringing up Devastators or Veterans. These are regular Marines. They don't exist in the same number as, say, Tactical Marines or Intercessors, but they are core to a Marine force. Death Company, by their very nature, are not. Some Blood Angel armies might be lucky enough to have no Death Company in their ranks come the start of a battle.

They should benefit from Strats/abilities that are specific to them, and not to Core units. Chaplains can buff them in the same way that Destroyer Lords buff Destroyers, but not Core Necron units.

Anyway, that's the point of view that I'm trying to get across.

If you want a more parallel example, wulfen and wulfen dreads aren't core, I'd pitch them at the same level of "coreness" as death company.

**JWBS**

Nah not really. Death Company have been lurking under the surface of the BA core identity pretty much since their inception. Wolfen basically just happened when one of the many mediocre 40K fluff writers said "Err, let's do a Wulfen curse for the Space Wolves, a bit like the Blood Angels, yeah?" and the guy next to him said "Ok sounds good enough".

**Dudeface**

JWBS wrote:
Nah not really. Death Company have been lurking under the surface of the BA core identity pretty much since their inception. Wolfen basically just happened when one of the many mediocre 40K fluff writers said "Err, let's do a Wulfen curse for the Space Wolves, a bit like the Blood Angels, yeah?" and the guy next to him said "Ok sounds good enough".

Smaller number of troops = check
Outside of core organisation = check
Chapter considers them a curse/secret = check

When they began to exist isn't relevant, or even how. The point is the maintain a very similar position in the chapters organisation.

Is the destroyer curse not a core part of the necrons identity?

**AngryAngel80**

I'd have to say the core thing I don't think GW thinks about too much. It's more there as a mechanic to limit auras and not so much a fluff reason for it. At least from how it feels to me, something tacked on to just limit power in lists.

**Dudeface**

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I'd have to say the core thing I don't think GW thinks about too much. It's more there as a mechanic to limit auras and not so much a fluff reason for it. At least from how it feels to me, something tacked on to just limit power in lists.

There's not enough books out to judge but from what we have, they're at best inconsistent and at worst just throwing it out at random.

**JWBS**

You don't get extra points for italicising core, or else I would have done it myself, and that checklist means literally nothing, you could add "Assault troops (check) and Unreasonably angry (check)" and they'd also be irrelevant similarities. The Wulfen have existed for about as long as the DC, there's some snippets in SW 2E. The point I was making is that DC have been a BA mainstay, whereas Wulfen for a long time were a couple of single paragraphs and pretty much that's it.

**Dudeface**

JWBS wrote:
You don't get extra points for italicising core, or else I would have done it myself, and that checklist means literally nothing, you could add "Assault troops (check) and Unreasonably angry (check)" and they'd also be irrelevant similarities. The Wulfen have existed for about as long as the DC, there's some snippets in SW 2E. The point I was making is that DC have been a BA mainstay, whereas Wulfen for a long time were a couple of single paragraphs and pretty much that's it.

Destroyers are a necron mainstay, they're not core. Rhinos are a ubiquitous mainstay to many armies and not core. There is no rhyme or reason why death company would get it and those others wouldn't if your logic is determined by existing for a long time and being a unit lots of people take.

**JWBS**

As has already been pointed out, Core is just a buff management mechanic. By arguing that DC shouldn't be core, you're literally just saying that DC should be buff-gimped, or have a distinct buff system because, reasons. Why are you arguing this?

**Dudeface**

JWBS wrote:
As has already been pointed out, Core is just a buff management mechanic. By arguing that DC shouldn't be core, you're literally just saying that DC should be buff-gimped, or have a distinct buff system because, reasons. Why are you arguing this?

Because we were given core as this:

Core Units
The Core keyword is used to identify units that form the fighting… well, core, of an army. These are most commonly represented by units of line infantry, though this doesn’t mean it’s exclusive to Troops, nor just Infantry.

Yet units that do form the core of some armies don't have it, while other units that shouldn't be forming the core of a fighting force do and it's utterly ad-hoc which side a unit falls on so far.

If they just wanted a buff toggle switch they shouldn't be tying it to a fluff based concept.

**Jidmah**

I'd argue that marketing texts are neither fluff nor rules

**Dudeface**

Jidmah wrote:
I'd argue that marketing texts are neither fluff nor rules

Whilst that's true enough, if a buff control button was wanted I just think there's other words they could key off that are less provocative, very evidently what someone considers a "core" part of their army is subjective.