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.
2020/08/10 21:10:14
Subject: New Unit Changes Found in 9th edition Boxes (latest: Space Marine Terminators)
The Newman wrote: The Cyclone Launcher was always 2d6 in Frag mode, it is and always has been just a twin-linked Missile Launcher.
What interests me is that suddenly the Power Sword, Power Axe, etc all being 5 points makes sense, I'll be very surprised if that S+1, Ap 3, D1 profile isn't standard over all the power weapons now. (They did the same thing going from 2nd to 3rd if I recall, there were a half dozen different profiles in 2nd but they were all lumped under "Power Weapon" in 3rd.)
Well even if it is codex changes won't be all that quick so many will be old stats for long while
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
Like multi melta change last year was errataed? Oh sorry they didn't.
And all armies obviously have terminators. Oh yes...oh sorry where's dark eldar terminators? Tau? Sob? Necron?
Where did I suggest xenos armies have terminators? Who even mentioned multimeltas?
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
Tell me again how that helps Necrons or Eldar or Sisters, or Orkz?
So chaos gets buffed to be just as bad relative to marines, while every other factions eat a big fat one.
Neat.
Ofc, none marine armies are absolute scum and exist purely for other players to curbstomp with their 3 wound terminators, they will also receive no updates or buffs. Of course lets pretend there isn't a massive necron release and their existing units are getting buffed.
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people are hoping new marine codex to balance things yet all we see so far is buffs
You're assuming all other terminators won't go to 3 wounds as well? Because I see plenty of buffs for chaos marines on there that they will simply have to faq in.
They might, but it'll take time for those Codexes to get out. They didn't "FAQ" the Stormshields and explicitly said they'll wait for the Codex to update those. I assume that'd be the philosophy going forward.
If you happen to be the 8th-Ed. "Space Wolves" or "Genestealer Cult"-Equivalent of 9th Edition, you might not get a Codex "bringing you up to 9th Edition standards" for a year or two (especially how slowly GW seems to be rolling out the Marine / Necron book to kick things off).
Combined with Codex-specific Secondaries making it easier to play the missions for books that have a 9th Ed. Codex, it might be a tough year or two for the "late Codex armies" of 9th.
There is a chance, I'm hoping that like with bolter discipline this would be a big enough wtf discrepancy they'd roll it out via faq though.
Massively missing the point at every level, congrats
Galef wrote: Is this the 2nd instance we've seen a Flamer become 12"? Or was the Incendium cannon on the Invictor 12" before?
At any rate, I could see ALL Flamers becoming 12" now, especially since they cost the same as Meltaguns or Plasma now.
Flamers were only arbitrarily 8" before because the tear-drop shaped flame template was 8", but that worked vastly differently than Flamers in 8th/9th.
I've got my fingers crossed that Flamers become 12" across the board. At least for Imperials and Chaos. Eldar Flamers are still 5ppm so they could stay unchanged.
-
The Invictor flamer was 12" out of the box. One of the reasons why it's always been the auto-take weapon choice.
Unless you can do math.
No, I chose to ignore your point. Just because a marine rule changes, the default response doesn't have to be a pointless whine and cry about how neglected x faction is.
2020/08/10 21:11:00
Subject: New Unit Changes Found in 9th edition Boxes (latest: Space Marine Terminators)
OOhhhhhhh. . . I missed that entirely! Well. . . it's not like there's any room for special rules on the chart. Jury's out, imo.
Semi-related, why do the new Skorpek destroyers not have a -1 to hit with their S8 blade, when the Skorpek Destroyer Lord has a -1 to hit on it's blade. :/
Probably because the Destroyer's Reap-blade is only S7 baseline — you have to use the Plasmacyte to boost it to S8, and risk destroying 1 of the 3 destroyers to do so.
2020/08/10 21:15:50
Subject: New Unit Changes Found in 9th edition Boxes (latest: Space Marine Terminators)
OOhhhhhhh. . . I missed that entirely! Well. . . it's not like there's any room for special rules on the chart. Jury's out, imo.
Semi-related, why do the new Skorpek destroyers not have a -1 to hit with their S8 blade, when the Skorpek Destroyer Lord has a -1 to hit on it's blade. :/
Probably because the Destroyer's Reap-blade is only S7 baseline — you have to use the Plasmacyte to boost it to S8, and risk destroying 1 of the 3 destroyers to do so.
Yeah but the Destroyer Lord dude is gigantic. The -1 to hit just for being S8 seems sorta ridiculous.
So what would you do with marks? And I expect to be impressed with Undivided.
Mark's in reality should've unlocked more Strats . . .
Barf. Boooooooorrrrriiiiinnggggg.
You cut off the rest of the post but did you bother to read it at all? My guess is no. I'm also not incorrect that Marks were extremely limited in usefulness to many units, with Nurgle essentially always taken for universal usefulness and avoiding ID on HQ characters from S8-9 weapons.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/08/10 21:57:40
Subject: 9th Edition Unit Changes in Repackaged Datasheets
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...Mark's in reality should've unlocked more Strats (we got one for each mark and that's it, obviously a problem), the Icons (which need a rework anyway in terms of rules) and interactions with Daemons. Flat stat boosts is nice and all but it doesn't work with the design philosophy of 8th/9th.
From a design philosophy standpoint there's also the question of whether CSM need three "tiers" of unit (unmarked, marked, Cult). Go back to the 3.5e book and you'll find that the Marks have a lesser effect in a general army and a much greater effect in an army from one of the Cult Legions (WE, EC, TS, DG); that level of granularity made more sense back then when the game was smaller and more detailed, but 8e/9e is much more abstract. Stratagems, Icons, and maybe wargear (ex. CSM with the Mark of Khorne can replace chainswords with chainaxes, stuff like that) might make sense, stat buffs don't.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...Mark's in reality should've unlocked more Strats (we got one for each mark and that's it, obviously a problem), the Icons (which need a rework anyway in terms of rules) and interactions with Daemons. Flat stat boosts is nice and all but it doesn't work with the design philosophy of 8th/9th.
From a design philosophy standpoint there's also the question of whether CSM need three "tiers" of unit (unmarked, marked, Cult). Go back to the 3.5e book and you'll find that the Marks have a lesser effect in a general army and a much greater effect in an army from one of the Cult Legions (WE, EC, TS, DG); that level of granularity made more sense back then when the game was smaller and more detailed, but 8e/9e is much more abstract. Stratagems, Icons, and maybe wargear (ex. CSM with the Mark of Khorne can replace chainswords with chainaxes, stuff like that) might make sense, stat buffs don't.
There's also the question if Cult Legions need to specifically fit that stereotype. Obviously not all World Eaters can be Berserker Marines because they wouldn't get anything done. There was no issues with Thousand Sons not being all Rubric Marines throughout 6th-7th outside the badly written codex to begin with.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/08/10 22:31:02
Subject: 9th Edition Unit Changes in Repackaged Datasheets
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...There's also the question if Cult Legions need to specifically fit that stereotype. Obviously not all World Eaters can be Berserker Marines because they wouldn't get anything done. There was no issues with Thousand Sons not being all Rubric Marines throughout 6th-7th outside the badly written codex to begin with.
Maybe? Part of the issue there is that if someone from the same gene-seed as one of the Cult Legions didn't get that Legion's signature modifications (Mortarion's bargain with Nurgle, the Rubric, the Butcher's Nails, whatever weird experiments the Emperor's Children have been doing) then that Legion's special rules might not be the best thing to represent them. Fluffwise the Legions don't necessarily need to fit the stereotype, but rules-wise it's much easier to build the Rubric into the Thousand Sons' unique rules/units than try and build Thousand Sons rules and Rubric rules separately.
Voss wrote: But what's the 'Primaris only, oldmarines Legends now' narrative going to do in the face of such aggressive provocation?
Continue to wonder how heavy those goal posts really are, given how often they're moved.
Terminators aren't "oldmarines". Terminators are Terminators. Unlike "oldmarines", Terminators still appear in big group photos throughout the new rule book where as the "oldmarines" are far harder to find, usually only showing up when GW is showing off Ravenwing bikers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/10 23:06:16
They aren't primaris, ergo they're old marines. They surfaced way back near the beginning at the RT/2nd edition changeover,
They have the same biology as their power armor brethren, and none of the Cawl upgrades, nor any of his even more better guns.
If you want to split hairs on Terminators being somehow a distinct thing, feel free, but you're going to have to shoulder those goalposts all on your lonesome.
My point is simply that these are old models that are getting improved, not squatted, regardless of the usual spate of horror stories about the impending miniature apocalypse.
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2020/08/10 23:52:23
Subject: New Unit Changes Found in 9th edition Boxes (latest: Space Marine Terminators)
They're still making new Terminator models. They're not making new regular Marine models anymore.
Terminators still appear in photography/artwork. Regular Marines are becoming more and more rare.
It's clear that GW thinks of Terminators separately from regular Marines. To deny this, and to deny that regular Marines are being pushed further and further towards the edges of the frame is to deny reality itself.
Terminators are the only category of oldmarines that has never got a Primaris replacement. Adding an additional wound feels like just making them Primaris too, anyway. It's what they should have done with everybody instead of releasing new Primaris models just different enough to not be able to "counts as," but Gee-dubs had to get space marine players to rebuy their armies somehow.
I don't know why Terminators seem to have escaped the general oldmarine cull, but I'm thankful for it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/11 00:13:26
2020/08/11 00:36:58
Subject: New Unit Changes Found in 9th edition Boxes (latest: Space Marine Terminators)
it looks like GW have decided to go down the 'wounds = veteran' line.
Those ADmech flying guys are 2 wounds, they added wounds to necron elite units. The bladeguard veterans are 3 wounds each, which is 'veteran' on top of the primaris 2 wounds.
Now terminators have an extra wound - which I am pretty sure will be the baseline profile and not the armour.
That is, the armour still grants 1 wound, but because the terminators are first company veterans, they will have 2 wounds base.
I wouldn't be surprised if they make all veteran firstborn have primaris profiles.
this potentially bodes well for armies like the eldar whose aspects really need a pick me up, and 2 wounds 2 attacks each would help immensely.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I like this hypothesis. It sounds quite nice for an army made up entirely of Veterans of The Long War.
It really does. Can't wait to finally kick that football.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
2020/08/11 01:37:57
Subject: New Unit Changes Found in 9th edition Boxes (latest: Space Marine Terminators)
Hellebore wrote: it looks like GW have decided to go down the 'wounds = veteran' line.
Those ADmech flying guys are 2 wounds, they added wounds to necron elite units. The bladeguard veterans are 3 wounds each, which is 'veteran' on top of the primaris 2 wounds.
Now terminators have an extra wound - which I am pretty sure will be the baseline profile and not the armour.
That is, the armour still grants 1 wound, but because the terminators are first company veterans, they will have 2 wounds base.
I wouldn't be surprised if they make all veteran firstborn have primaris profiles.
this potentially bodes well for armies like the eldar whose aspects really need a pick me up, and 2 wounds 2 attacks each would help immensely.
The implications are so confusing. I mean we had the 2W mini-marine rumor not long ago and that seemed totally impossible....now not so much, but then the current points have to be placeholder numbers until the codex. It also makes the Heavy Bolter going to D2 make some more sense.
Ultimately this will be a massive shake up, but we'll all be waiting for codexes to get on board. :\
2020/08/11 02:05:52
Subject: New Unit Changes Found in 9th edition Boxes (latest: Space Marine Terminators)
Hellebore wrote: it looks like GW have decided to go down the 'wounds = veteran' line.
Those ADmech flying guys are 2 wounds, they added wounds to necron elite units. The bladeguard veterans are 3 wounds each, which is 'veteran' on top of the primaris 2 wounds.
Now terminators have an extra wound - which I am pretty sure will be the baseline profile and not the armour.
That is, the armour still grants 1 wound, but because the terminators are first company veterans, they will have 2 wounds base.
I wouldn't be surprised if they make all veteran firstborn have primaris profiles.
this potentially bodes well for armies like the eldar whose aspects really need a pick me up, and 2 wounds 2 attacks each would help immensely.
The implications are so confusing. I mean we had the 2W mini-marine rumor not long ago and that seemed totally impossible....now not so much, but then the current points have to be placeholder numbers until the codex. It also makes the Heavy Bolter going to D2 make some more sense.
Ultimately this will be a massive shake up, but we'll all be waiting for codexes to get on board. :\
Keep in mind if the theory holds it's only veterans. So van vets, sternguard, Chosen, aspects, etc. So not all Trueborn marines. And, yeah, that codex wait will be a long one, especially when other factions have already gotten theirs. Sounds like that "arms race" you're always talking about doesn't it?
@Eldarain: Good one! Glad to be your straight man.
2020/08/11 02:09:23
Subject: New Unit Changes Found in 9th edition Boxes (latest: Space Marine Terminators)
Hellebore wrote: it looks like GW have decided to go down the 'wounds = veteran' line.
Those ADmech flying guys are 2 wounds, they added wounds to necron elite units. The bladeguard veterans are 3 wounds each, which is 'veteran' on top of the primaris 2 wounds.
Now terminators have an extra wound - which I am pretty sure will be the baseline profile and not the armour.
That is, the armour still grants 1 wound, but because the terminators are first company veterans, they will have 2 wounds base.
I wouldn't be surprised if they make all veteran firstborn have primaris profiles.
this potentially bodes well for armies like the eldar whose aspects really need a pick me up, and 2 wounds 2 attacks each would help immensely.
The implications are so confusing. I mean we had the 2W mini-marine rumor not long ago and that seemed totally impossible....now not so much, but then the current points have to be placeholder numbers until the codex. It also makes the Heavy Bolter going to D2 make some more sense.
Ultimately this will be a massive shake up, but we'll all be waiting for codexes to get on board. :\
Look I'm hoping, but I've been disappointed a lot before. extra wounds on units is an indirect way to reduce the game's lethality without changing weapon profiles or rules - suddenly units can tank twice the incoming fire.
Indirect evidence coming from a range of weapons getting 2dam shots going forward. So rather than step away from 2dam as people complained about the lethality against primaris, they're leaning into it....
The extra wound really wasn't the fix with Terminators but whatever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hellebore wrote: it looks like GW have decided to go down the 'wounds = veteran' line.
Those ADmech flying guys are 2 wounds, they added wounds to necron elite units. The bladeguard veterans are 3 wounds each, which is 'veteran' on top of the primaris 2 wounds.
Now terminators have an extra wound - which I am pretty sure will be the baseline profile and not the armour.
That is, the armour still grants 1 wound, but because the terminators are first company veterans, they will have 2 wounds base.
I wouldn't be surprised if they make all veteran firstborn have primaris profiles.
this potentially bodes well for armies like the eldar whose aspects really need a pick me up, and 2 wounds 2 attacks each would help immensely.
Which Necron units got more wounds?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/11 03:08:09
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/08/11 08:18:08
Subject: New Unit Changes Found in 9th edition Boxes (latest: Space Marine Terminators)
Ofc, none marine armies are absolute scum and exist purely for other players to curbstomp with their 3 wound terminators, they will also receive no updates or buffs. Of course lets pretend there isn't a massive necron release and their existing units are getting buffed.
I know you're saying this facetiously, but... xenos have been in a bad place for a long time now, and have barely had any decent updates in ... I don't even know how long.
Necrons getting an update now is a big deal, but it's too little too late. And you say it as if suddenly necrons are going to be a force to be reckoned with, but they were the worst army in the game for years, and their new update (so far) may barely be enough to put them into the levels of average at best.
Space marines need a massive series of nerfs and points reductions, to be brought in line with everyone else. Instead... they're getting 50% more durable terminators, and +1 strength on weapons that were already better than most armies have access to for the points.
You don't know how long? The Codex: Space marine version 2 came out last August. Barely a year ago. You have the memory of a gold fish.
Uuuhh....He says he doesn't remember when XENOS got decent update. What does marine codex version 2 have got to do with that? So marines got one in last august. When did xenos get major update? GSC got semi decent, orks got bunch of buggies...what else?
the point is that prior to space marines 8.5 Space Marines where NOT the top army. IIRC Eldar where (suprise suprise )
That's not the point at all. The point is about xenos consistently being ignored (and/or getting shafted) in favor of marines when it comes to model/rule updates, not about who is top tier.
I mean, it's in the term xenos already. We're comparing all non-human factions grouped together to a single human subfaction. Would you honestly defend the status quo so zealously if the tables were turned?
2020/08/11 18:30:13
Subject: 9th Edition Unit Changes in Repackaged Datasheets
So what would you do with marks? And I expect to be impressed with Undivided.
Mark's in reality should've unlocked more Strats . . .
Barf. Boooooooorrrrriiiiinnggggg.
God this. I'm so sick of the character of armies being hidden behind a limited resource. It makes everything so bland.
Eh, in theory there'd be nothing wrong with Mark-specific 0CP strats - OK, you could only use them once per turn/phase (sorry, my mind just went blank), but at least they'd be available every turn, while still restricted to the units that they thematically fit with.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2020/08/11 19:08:55
Subject: New Unit Changes Found in 9th edition Boxes (latest: Space Marine Terminators)
The implications are so confusing. I mean we had the 2W mini-marine rumor not long ago and that seemed totally impossible....now not so much, but then the current points have to be placeholder numbers until the codex. It also makes the Heavy Bolter going to D2 make some more sense.
Ultimately this will be a massive shake up, but we'll all be waiting for codexes to get on board. :\
I'm beginning to wonder if the uncertainty itself is the problem. 9th edition seems to have brought a nice box of models (if you care about those factions) and a lot of question marks and uncertainty.
Which has led into frustration and complaint spirals based off of unknowns.
All the FAQs and whatnot are done, but people are more concerned about the fragments of future changes (on assembly guides, pictures, etc) than anything else.
40k seems to need a solid roadmap of what's going on, just so every discussion can stop devolving into the now-usual mess.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/11 19:09:08
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2020/08/11 20:31:38
Subject: 9th Edition Unit Changes in Repackaged Datasheets
So what would you do with marks? And I expect to be impressed with Undivided.
Mark's in reality should've unlocked more Strats . . .
Barf. Boooooooorrrrriiiiinnggggg.
God this. I'm so sick of the character of armies being hidden behind a limited resource. It makes everything so bland.
Eh, in theory there'd be nothing wrong with Mark-specific 0CP strats - OK, you could only use them once per turn/phase (sorry, my mind just went blank), but at least they'd be available every turn, while still restricted to the units that they thematically fit with.
Why not just make it a special rule on the unit that says "once per phase" then?
2020/08/11 21:02:23
Subject: 9th Edition Unit Changes in Repackaged Datasheets
So what would you do with marks? And I expect to be impressed with Undivided.
Mark's in reality should've unlocked more Strats . . .
Barf. Boooooooorrrrriiiiinnggggg.
God this. I'm so sick of the character of armies being hidden behind a limited resource. It makes everything so bland.
Eh, in theory there'd be nothing wrong with Mark-specific 0CP strats - OK, you could only use them once per turn/phase (sorry, my mind just went blank), but at least they'd be available every turn, while still restricted to the units that they thematically fit with.
Why not just make it a special rule on the unit that says "once per phase" then?
Everyone with a Mark is sharing in the blessings of their god, and those blessings are finite?
I was throwing it out there as a way Slayer's idea could be crowbar'd into shape.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2020/08/12 08:49:38
Subject: New Unit Changes Found in 9th edition Boxes (latest: Space Marine Terminators)
Eldar 
Imperial Guard 
Space Marines
