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.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, they're also giving necrons special army-wide "dynastic codes" which you get 1 of just for playing necrons and 2 of for playing mono-dynasty necrons.

Bet you a shiny nickel those will be flat, army-wide special rules akin to the sisters of battle ones, intended to be equivalent to doctrines.

That wouldn’t be to bad at all, the sisters ones seem pretty good, not broken but a nice little boost for running mono faction.

Yeah, Gw always either goes bonkers over the top crazy or super undershoots with their "new thing we want to try and then roll thru the codexes".

Combat Doctrines are looking more like a "6th ed Valkyrie/Heldrake/Night Scythe" or a "7th ed decurion" then they are a "7th ed first few formations" or a "8th ed Marine/CSM/Admech/Eldar chapter tactics"

then they forget about it for the rest of the edition and just leave the players to deal with their mistake.

the_scotsman wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, they're also giving necrons special army-wide "dynastic codes" which you get 1 of just for playing necrons and 2 of for playing mono-dynasty necrons.

Bet you a shiny nickel those will be flat, army-wide special rules akin to the sisters of battle ones, intended to be equivalent to doctrines.

That wouldn’t be to bad at all, the sisters ones seem pretty good, not broken but a nice little boost for running mono faction.

Yeah, Gw always either goes bonkers over the top crazy or super undershoots with their "new thing we want to try and then roll thru the codexes".

Combat Doctrines are looking more like a "6th ed Valkyrie/Heldrake/Night Scythe" or a "7th ed decurion" then they are a "7th ed first few formations" or a "8th ed Marine/CSM/Admech/Eldar chapter tactics"

then they forget about it for the rest of the edition and just leave the players to deal with their mistake.

After the nerfs the basic doctrines aren’t to bad a bonus to ap for various weapons that changes each turn is nice, now they just need to reign in some of the super doctrines a bit. The BA one adding 1 extra attack on the first turn of close combat turn 3 and on is neat but rarely do I actually get to make use of it, as the melee units are dead or the opponent is. Some of the other chapters super doctrines are way to good.

I think scrapping the doctrines and rolling some of the bonuses into a 1 use stratagem or stratagems might be better, you pay x CP to activate a doctrine for 1 turn and can’t use it more than once(maybe just make it a single strat so you only get 1 doctrine for 1 turn and no more), then give the various chapters something closer to on par with the sisters bonuses where you can pick one small buff or 2 if you roll(could have some unique ones for more unique chapters like BA, SW, and DA.

the_scotsman wrote:
Oh good, just what we needed, buffs to the melon-fething invictor warsuit, everyone's favorite miserable to play against piece of trash that deploys 9" away from your lines, destroys twice its points value and then explodes dealing d6 mortal wounds to your whole army.

boy oh boy do I love games being decided by who wins the roll off for turn 1.

Two of them sound awesome as an addition to my new Eradicators, Outriders and Bladegaurd Veterans. I have to make a few calls now with GT organisers, as they can save themselves the hussle this year and simply declare me the winner. As nobody could possible every win against Marines, right?

Hyperbole much? The warsuit is a good unit, but really not at all like you try to make it out to be, even with the buffs.

a_typical_hero wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Oh good, just what we needed, buffs to the melon-fething invictor warsuit, everyone's favorite miserable to play against piece of trash that deploys 9" away from your lines, destroys twice its points value and then explodes dealing d6 mortal wounds to your whole army.

boy oh boy do I love games being decided by who wins the roll off for turn 1.

Two of them sound awesome as an addition to my new Eradicators, Outriders and Bladegaurd Veterans. I have to make a few calls now with GT organisers, as they can save themselves the hussle this year and simply declare me the winner. As nobody could possible every win against Marines, right?

Hyperbole much? The warsuit is a good unit, but really not at all like you try to make it out to be, even with the buffs.

I run 3 because if I don’t go first I usually lose 1 to 2 in my opponents first turn, this may change a little with the new terrain rules.

The Invader datasheet was leaked, and Multimeltas appear to have gone up to Heavy 2. The half range ability was changed to D6+2 damage instead of roll twice/take better.

Stolen from the necron thread:




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes I do think the turret is mental

With the rules change I’m going to have to consider picking up one or two of the new primaris razorbacks with the close range anti tank load out, twin las talon and what looks like 2 multimeltas.

I would hope that if the new codex doesn't drastically alter doctrines (or standstill and fire twice) that event organizers start doing something to address the imbalance.

Heavy 6 AC? Heavy 4 lascannon? On a platform that is probably 80-100 points based on the PL?

The real kick in the teeth will be when there's not another day 1 patch FAQ to give chaos, guard, sisters, etc heavy 2 multimeltas.

Yeah lets hope its not all Multi-meltas are created equal from day one....

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yeah lets hope its not all Multi-meltas are created equal from day one....

You don’t want them to buff multimeltas for other armies when they change it for loyalist marines?

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yeah lets hope its not all Multi-meltas are created equal from day one....

You don’t want them to buff multimeltas for other armies when they change it for loyalist marines?

I was leaning to the Animal Farm interpretation - all multi-meltas are equal, but some are more equal than others...

These datasheets/booklets just seem a bit weird. (Can't say I'd be surprised if they buffed Praetorians/Lichguard though - or a repackaged spider.)

I mean I guess you could move to "datasheet is stats, special rules are in the codex somewhere else" - but it seems unlikely.

So while there isn't really any reason to doubt them, I feel we are missing something.

The firestrike turret with Las option is 130 or 140pts (its in manual), thats pretty pricey for such an easy kill. Hits like a truck, but easy to take out.

Anyone else notice the Firestrike Turrets lack the "primaris" key word?

 cuda1179 wrote:
Anyone else notice the Firestrike Turrets lack the "primaris" key word?

None of the Primaris vehicles have the Primaris keyword.

 Dysartes wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yeah lets hope its not all Multi-meltas are created equal from day one....

You don’t want them to buff multimeltas for other armies when they change it for loyalist marines?

I was leaning to the Animal Farm interpretation - all multi-meltas are equal, but some are more equal than others...

Thats kind - wish i had thought of it - but no I wrote it badly :( and yes I hope all Multi meltas are changed!

what's interesting to me is that the new melta rule (the damage +2 thing) is not on the eradicator datasheet. They have the usual, half range, roll twice rule.

If they were planning on +2 damage being the new core rule, why wouldn't they change it for eradicators?

and if those datasheets are just "filler" and the core changes are coming in the new 'dex, then why would Storm Shields be changed in the new datasheets? Why not just leave off all changes to the codex?

the_scotsman wrote:
what's interesting to me is that the new melta rule (the damage +2 thing) is not on the eradicator datasheet. They have the usual, half range, roll twice rule.

If they were planning on +2 damage being the new core rule, why wouldn't they change it for eradicators?

and if those datasheets are just "filler" and the core changes are coming in the new 'dex, then why would Storm Shields be changed in the new datasheets? Why not just leave off all changes to the codex?

Seems pretty GW to not have any consistency with this sort of thing. They probably were printed at different deadlines and they changed stuff in between or the intern that does the pack-in pamphlet datasheets just used the wrong one "Is it 'Invictor 9.0v2v4 (latest)" or is it 'Invictor 9.1v1v3'?" situation

rbstr wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
what's interesting to me is that the new melta rule (the damage +2 thing) is not on the eradicator datasheet. They have the usual, half range, roll twice rule.

If they were planning on +2 damage being the new core rule, why wouldn't they change it for eradicators?

and if those datasheets are just "filler" and the core changes are coming in the new 'dex, then why would Storm Shields be changed in the new datasheets? Why not just leave off all changes to the codex?

Seems pretty GW to not have any consistency with this sort of thing. They probably were printed at different deadlines and they changed stuff in between or the intern that does the pack-in pamphlet datasheets just used the wrong one "Is it 'Invictor 9.0v2v4 (latest)" or is it 'Invictor 9.1v1v3'?" situation

Oh, if ONLY we had some kind of universal, game-wide change method we could use to take these shared profiles and update them all at once, across all factions.

Would that we could do that sort of thing during an edition change, but alas, we have so many OTHER things we need to do then, like interpreting the pattern of gak our caged chimpanzee throws at the wall to determine the new points values of everything! We also have to hit ourselves repeatedly on the head so we avoid remembering any lessons we learned over the course of the previous edition.

Good thing there's a Codex coming soon?

You gotta find some chill, the plastic spacemans are just not worth getting this worked-up.

the_scotsman wrote:
what's interesting to me is that the new melta rule (the damage +2 thing) is not on the eradicator datasheet. They have the usual, half range, roll twice rule.

If they were planning on +2 damage being the new core rule, why wouldn't they change it for eradicators?

and if those datasheets are just "filler" and the core changes are coming in the new 'dex, then why would Storm Shields be changed in the new datasheets? Why not just leave off all changes to the codex?

Good point - maybe they figured they were already overpowered and decided to give them lesser versions

Rapier: Has treads, is self-propelled, gunners can walk alongside it.

3" movement, shoots at -1 on the move.

Firestrike: Has fixed legs, and one dude in the seat who must have to hop out and carry the thing piggyback to redeploy.

3" movement, shoots at full effectiveness on the move.

?????????

I want to get off Mr. Cawl's Wild Ride.

Wait yeah, how the hell does the servoturret move?

It doesn't even have grav pads or anything, it's just a cruciform carraige!

Maybe it hovers on grav plates?

The techmarine Flintstones it.

Yabadaba Do-n't think too hard about Primaris tech heresy.

the_scotsman wrote:
what's interesting to me is that the new melta rule (the damage +2 thing) is not on the eradicator datasheet. They have the usual, half range, roll twice rule.

If they were planning on +2 damage being the new core rule, why wouldn't they change it for eradicators?

and if those datasheets are just "filler" and the core changes are coming in the new 'dex, then why would Storm Shields be changed in the new datasheets? Why not just leave off all changes to the codex?

I'm beginning to wonder if they aren't from a draft version of Edge of Silence (the pamphlet in Indomitus). The format is very similar, down to the picture and quote in the sidebar.
It would also explain why these things all have points at the back of CA2020 as well.

No idea why they don't have any special rules though (beyond 'its a draft version). The Invader should at least have Angels of Death, since its a Biker unit.

Time to bust out my Multimelta Devastator bits, finish my Attack Bikes and re-equip my Land Speeders for 2 shot Multimeltas.

Can I still put two Multimeltas on my Land Speeders using the Index? I'm going to assume I can't.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Time to bust out my Multimelta Devastator bits, finish my Attack Bikes and re-equip my Land Speeders for 2 shot Multimeltas.

Can I still put two Multimeltas on my Land Speeders using the Index? I'm going to assume I can't.

I'd suggest waiting. This changes nothing for any other multimelta.

 catbarf wrote:
Rapier: Has treads, is self-propelled, gunners can walk alongside it.

3" movement, shoots at -1 on the move.

Firestrike: Has fixed legs, and one dude in the seat who must have to hop out and carry the thing piggyback to redeploy.

3" movement, shoots at full effectiveness on the move.

?????????

I want to get off Mr. Cawl's Wild Ride.

Lol/sigh. Honestly I'm just tuning out Primaris stuff at the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Time to bust out my Multimelta Devastator bits, finish my Attack Bikes and re-equip my Land Speeders for 2 shot Multimeltas.

Can I still put two Multimeltas on my Land Speeders using the Index? I'm going to assume I can't.

I'd suggest waiting. This changes nothing for any other multimelta.

Says "Multimelta", not Heavy Onslaught MacroMultiMelta or anything. If the points leaks were right and the Lascannon was 15 while the Multimelta is 20, this would be a good reason.

the_scotsman wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
to me, the invictors new statline says no more combat doctrines, at least how they exist now.

why? Because they buffed the weapons on a space marine thing?

You think GW buffing some aspect of a space marine thing means they're going to nerf some other aspect? Boy oh boy do I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you my friend.

And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!