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.

Tyel wrote:
There's a Rhino/Razorback sheet floating around. Nothing that interesting except S10 on the hunter-killer. Which I think might have come up before.

Sort of confirms Lascannons are going to be a joke compared with MMs though.

So no charges to lascannons? Minimum 3D would probably be a special rule, so not on the instructions.

Tyel wrote:
There's a Rhino/Razorback sheet floating around. Nothing that interesting except S10 on the hunter-killer. Which I think might have come up before.

Sort of confirms Lascannons are going to be a joke compared with MMs though.

S9 and 48" range isn't a joke though. At 24" the Multimelta does 1.1 to w Knight while the Lascannon does .77 across the table. I think the range is still going to be a big deal. I'll probably switch to MMs on my Tacs, but Razorbacks/Predators etc with Las still look decent to me.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't marines already have more types of bolt weapon than some armies have units?

given the samll size of some armies that was the case even before primaris I think

Custodes have what,

Shield captains,
Custodian Guard
Wardens
Flagpole guys
Bike Guys
Termy army guys
Dreadnoughts
Land Raiders

Classic Marines have

Boltgun
Combi-bolter
Bolt Pistol
Heavy Bolter
Storm Bolter


yeah remove the dreads and land raiders and yeaaah

BrianDavion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't marines already have more types of bolt weapon than some armies have units?

given the samll size of some armies that was the case even before primaris I think

Custodes have what,

Shield captains,
Custodian Guard
Wardens
Flagpole guys
Bike Guys
Termy army guys
Dreadnoughts
Land Raiders

Classic Marines have

Boltgun
Combi-bolter
Bolt Pistol
Heavy Bolter
Storm Bolter


yeah remove the dreads and land raiders and yeaaah

Custodes aren't a real army without FW anyway.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't marines already have more types of bolt weapon than some armies have units?

given the samll size of some armies that was the case even before primaris I think

Custodes have what,

Shield captains,
Custodian Guard
Wardens
Flagpole guys
Bike Guys
Termy army guys
Dreadnoughts
Land Raiders

Classic Marines have

Boltgun
Combi-bolter
Bolt Pistol
Heavy Bolter
Storm Bolter


yeah remove the dreads and land raiders and yeaaah

Custodes aren't a real army without FW anyway.

that's IMHO a problem.

BrianDavion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't marines already have more types of bolt weapon than some armies have units?

given the samll size of some armies that was the case even before primaris I think

Custodes have what,

Shield captains,
Custodian Guard
Wardens
Flagpole guys
Bike Guys
Termy army guys
Dreadnoughts
Land Raiders

Classic Marines have

Boltgun
Combi-bolter
Bolt Pistol
Heavy Bolter
Storm Bolter


yeah remove the dreads and land raiders and yeaaah

Custodes aren't a real army without FW anyway.

that's IMHO a problem.

I mean it MAKES them an army so is it really a problem? FW already had all those models from 30k to begin with.

Given how GW proper treats FW items, I'd say it's a problem.

also not everyone wants to order FW resin stuff for their army, buy a FW index book yadda yadda ya. If an army doesn't work with just it's core codex elements, it's a problem. no matter the army

BrianDavion wrote:
also not everyone wants to order FW resin stuff for their army, buy a FW index book yadda yadda ya. If an army doesn't work with just it's core codex elements, it's a problem. no matter the army

FW and GW are the same entity, with the same rules writers. The only difference is the website you order from.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
FW and GW are the same entity, with the same rules writers. The only difference is the website you order from.

It's not that simple.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
also not everyone wants to order FW resin stuff for their army, buy a FW index book yadda yadda ya. If an army doesn't work with just it's core codex elements, it's a problem. no matter the army

FW and GW are the same entity, with the same rules writers. The only difference is the website you order from.

Yeah. . . Another set of books that will become obsolete in a few years.

The only FW I've ever bought is reinforced armor for Land Raiders. I have a few other things but they were donations, and I probably wouldn't have bought them otherwise.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
FW and GW are the same entity, with the same rules writers. The only difference is the website you order from.

It's not that simple.

Agreed; 'it's all the same' does not properly describe the situation.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
There's a Rhino/Razorback sheet floating around. Nothing that interesting except S10 on the hunter-killer. Which I think might have come up before.

Sort of confirms Lascannons are going to be a joke compared with MMs though.

S9 and 48" range isn't a joke though. At 24" the Multimelta does 1.1 to w Knight while the Lascannon does .77 across the table. I think the range is still going to be a big deal. I'll probably switch to MMs on my Tacs, but Razorbacks/Predators etc with Las still look decent to me.

You would want mm's on vehicles though negating range issue. More m, no -1 to hit.

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
There's a Rhino/Razorback sheet floating around. Nothing that interesting except S10 on the hunter-killer. Which I think might have come up before.

Sort of confirms Lascannons are going to be a joke compared with MMs though.

S9 and 48" range isn't a joke though. At 24" the Multimelta does 1.1 to w Knight while the Lascannon does .77 across the table. I think the range is still going to be a big deal. I'll probably switch to MMs on my Tacs, but Razorbacks/Predators etc with Las still look decent to me.

You would want mm's on vehicles though negating range issue. More m, no -1 to hit.

It's not like there's many Marine vehicles that can replace their lascannons with multi-meltas (or vice-versa) though. Only Dreadnoughts come to mind. Pretty much every other non-Infantry unit has access to one and not the other, or can have both simultaneously

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
There's a Rhino/Razorback sheet floating around. Nothing that interesting except S10 on the hunter-killer. Which I think might have come up before.

Sort of confirms Lascannons are going to be a joke compared with MMs though.

S9 and 48" range isn't a joke though. At 24" the Multimelta does 1.1 to w Knight while the Lascannon does .77 across the table. I think the range is still going to be a big deal. I'll probably switch to MMs on my Tacs, but Razorbacks/Predators etc with Las still look decent to me.

You would want mm's on vehicles though negating range issue. More m, no -1 to hit.

The problem with MultiMeltas is that to really make them hurt, you gotta get really close. I don't always want to do that with vehicles, especially since that's diving into Melta range. Lascannon platforms can stay safer, and will be more able to take advantage of Obscuring. There's also the thing with re-rolls. If I'm suiciding Meltas into the middle it's going to be riskier to support them with Chapter Master + Lt.

I think the Meltas with staying power are going to be Meltas on infantry like my Tac squads. They're going to have a lower profile and be able to take advantage of cover more.

Heavy 2, S8, AP-4, Dd6 will hurt most things plenty without getting into melta range.

I like that there's a choice to be made between Lascannons and Multi-Meltas.

That's never been the case in the past.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Heavy 2, S8, AP-4, Dd6 will hurt most things plenty without getting into melta range.

For sure, I think it's a great weapon. I just think there's still a valuable place for Lascannons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
FW and GW are the same entity, with the same rules writers. The only difference is the website you order from.

It's not that simple.

Given we're in an age of internet shopping, why isn't it?

The only real difference I can think of between the two is shipping prices - on the other hand, I think there were electronic version of the FW Index books available, which circumvents that nicely for the rules component, if not the models themselves.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Heavy 2, S8, AP-4, Dd6 will hurt most things plenty without getting into melta range.

For sure, I think it's a great weapon. I just think there's still a valuable place for Lascannons.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that you don't need to get in extremely close for multi-meltas to be effective. Especially SOB using the Storm of Retribution strategem.

 Dysartes wrote:
Given we're in an age of internet shopping, why isn't it?

The only real difference I can think of between the two is shipping prices - on the other hand, I think there were electronic version of the FW Index books available, which circumvents that nicely for the rules component, if not the models themselves.

It's got nothing to do with shopping or access.

FW found out about 8th Ed when we did. That's how much of a singular company GW proper and FW are.

The "siloing" in that part of the world is detrimental to their output.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Given we're in an age of internet shopping, why isn't it?

The only real difference I can think of between the two is shipping prices - on the other hand, I think there were electronic version of the FW Index books available, which circumvents that nicely for the rules component, if not the models themselves.

It's got nothing to do with shopping or access.

FW found out about 8th Ed when we did. That's how much of a singular company GW proper and FW are.

The "siloing" in that part of the world is detrimental to their output.

And iirc they moved the rules for FW models from FW to GW. So they fixed the silo issue.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Given we're in an age of internet shopping, why isn't it?

The only real difference I can think of between the two is shipping prices - on the other hand, I think there were electronic version of the FW Index books available, which circumvents that nicely for the rules component, if not the models themselves.

It's got nothing to do with shopping or access.

FW found out about 8th Ed when we did. That's how much of a singular company GW proper and FW are.

The "siloing" in that part of the world is detrimental to their output.

Was a factor at the start of 8th. Has been confirmed multiple times now that GW Studio is writing the 40k rules for FW models, so should no longer be a factor.

There also is the issue with FW units suddenly disappearing without a warning without as much as a legends entry for those units or units being nerfed into oblivion for no apparent reason.

At this point, spending money on 40k FW models is very much a gamble - your expensive brick of resin might be completely unplayable after the next FAQ/CA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
Was a factor at the start of 8th. Has been confirmed multiple times now that GW Studio is writing the 40k rules for FW models, so should no longer be a factor.

Which is kind of irrelevant when the current FW rules, sans points, were still the ones written by the FW team, right?

 Jidmah wrote:
There also is the issue with FW units suddenly disappearing without a warning without as much as a legends entry for those units or units being nerfed into oblivion for no apparent reason.

At this point, spending money on 40k FW models is very much a gamble - your expensive brick of resin might be completely unplayable after the next FAQ/CA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
Was a factor at the start of 8th. Has been confirmed multiple times now that GW Studio is writing the 40k rules for FW models, so should no longer be a factor.

Which is kind of irrelevant when the current FW rules, sans points, were still the ones written by the FW team, right?

It also doesn't look good for fw when gw "nerfs fw units into oblivion" as you put it.

If they ever release those FQ book updates they've been promising for literally years now, it'll presumably give some pretty strong clues for whether the range has a future or is being wound down.

 Dysartes wrote:
Was a factor at the start of 8th. Has been confirmed multiple times now that GW Studio is writing the 40k rules for FW models, so should no longer be a factor.

Not if they decide to just not write rules for something, or something languishes and goes out of production and never sees an update. Given how many things have vanished from FW's line, sometimes without warning, it would be callous at best (foolish at worst) to assume that everything from now on will be fine.

The Devastator squad page has been leaked, but it has a bunch of typos.

 Orodhen wrote:
The Devastator squad page has been leaked, but it has a bunch of typos.

source?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Orodhen wrote:
The Devastator squad page has been leaked, but it has a bunch of typos.

source?

It's on a facebook page I follow. It's not letting me post the image.

One of the typos on the page is they have Multi-Meltas at S 5, AP -1, 1 D.