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.
2020/08/17 22:45:13
Subject: Re:How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
Yea, but those choices dont have a ton of variety.
I dont think people would be happy with splinter pistol & blade kabs, kabs that block ds (well, maybe that), S4 18" ap1 poison kabs, kabs with 1 D2 shot, etc
2020/08/17 22:51:11
Subject: Re:How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea, but those choices dont have a ton of variety.
I dont think people would be happy with splinter pistol & blade kabs, kabs that block ds (well, maybe that), S4 18" ap1 poison kabs, kabs with 1 D2 shot, etc
Maybe, but speaking as a csm player, I'd love a troops choice with +1A and leadership with the ability to take a cc weapon in addition to combi-bolters and other special weapons. Chosen are what a true Legionnaire should be. Of course, they would only be available for The Legions.
And we still don't know how "different" these heavy intercessors are going to be compared to loyalists other troops options.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/17 22:53:03
2020/08/17 23:00:44
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
Voss wrote: The codex video, though you're better off looking for breakdowns of the images. They're pretty fuzzy in the video itself (contents page, model gallery and chapter tactics/dynasty codes)
I don't know how anyone could make out the words on that contents page from that video. It's way to blurry.
As a chaos player I'm fine with chaos having just CSMs as a troop choice, so long as the basic CSMs are good. a return to the days of being able to have a bolt gun AND chain sword would be a nice start. that'd bring CSM squads up to a squad with 2 wounds 4T 4S 3+ a boltgun and 2 -1 AP melee attacks. which would feel VERY solid
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/17 23:31:15
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/08/17 23:35:11
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Oh trust me I've been all for CSM at minimum having Vet stats and for consolidation of Marine entries (frankly, nobody asked for Incursors and nobody cares about them, AND they get less mileage with caps at modifying hits anyway, so why not just...get rid of them?). Vet Intercessors was fine as a Strat as it took up super little room and was clear and concise. Making them their own entry is frankly a slap in the face to DEldar players wanting their Trueborn and Bloodbrides back.
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.
2020/08/18 00:06:53
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Yeah seriously. Space marines had ENOUGH units. Just update rules or make new models. Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
2020/08/18 01:51:38
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Yeah seriously. Space marines had ENOUGH units. Just update rules or make new models. Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
Gw seems intent on having a different data sheet for every possible loyalist loadout. Why couldn't they just have given intercessors the option to trade their bolters for chainswords like csm instead of creating a different troops choice for assault intercessors? If you don't like this I have some bad news for you: the leaked contents page for the new Loyalist Scum codex features two data sheets for Predators, three for the new floating "not a Predator", and three for the new primaris land speeder. Seems they're doubling down on this approach.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 01:53:02
2020/08/18 01:57:55
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Yeah seriously. Space marines had ENOUGH units. Just update rules or make new models. Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
Gw seems intent on having a different data sheet for every possible loyalist loadout. Why couldn't they just have given intercessors the option to trade their bolters for chainswords like csm instead of creating a different troops choice for assault intercessors? If you don't like this I have some bad news for you: the leaked contents page for the new Loyalist Scum codex features two data sheets for Predators, three for the new floating "not a Predator", and three for the new primaris land speeder. Seems they're doubling down on this approach.
because intercessors don't have chainswords in the box.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/08/18 02:01:03
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Yeah seriously. Space marines had ENOUGH units. Just update rules or make new models. Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
Gw seems intent on having a different data sheet for every possible loyalist loadout. Why couldn't they just have given intercessors the option to trade their bolters for chainswords like csm instead of creating a different troops choice for assault intercessors? If you don't like this I have some bad news for you: the leaked contents page for the new Loyalist Scum codex features two data sheets for Predators, three for the new floating "not a Predator", and three for the new primaris land speeder. Seems they're doubling down on this approach.
Which wouldn't, honestly, be an issue, were it not for the Rule of Three.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/08/18 02:11:53
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Yeah seriously. Space marines had ENOUGH units. Just update rules or make new models. Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
Gw seems intent on having a different data sheet for every possible loyalist loadout. Why couldn't they just have given intercessors the option to trade their bolters for chainswords like csm instead of creating a different troops choice for assault intercessors? If you don't like this I have some bad news for you: the leaked contents page for the new Loyalist Scum codex features two data sheets for Predators, three for the new floating "not a Predator", and three for the new primaris land speeder. Seems they're doubling down on this approach.
Which wouldn't, honestly, be an issue, were it not for the Rule of Three.
rule of 3 mind you is why this data sheet approuch is proably for the best. any army that was flexable and used the same unit for multiple roles could be really screwed over by the rule of 3.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/08/18 02:18:16
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
BrianDavion wrote: ...rule of 3 mind you is why this data sheet approuch is proably for the best. any army that was flexable and used the same unit for multiple roles could be really screwed over by the rule of 3.
Yes and no. The issue here is that the Rule of 3 itself is kind of a dumb idea; the main reason it exists is to prevent HQ-spam, but what it ends up doing is unfairly punishing people whose vehicles don't come in squadrons (why are 12 Leman Russes all right but 4 Onagers not?).
BrianDavion wrote: ...rule of 3 mind you is why this data sheet approuch is proably for the best. any army that was flexable and used the same unit for multiple roles could be really screwed over by the rule of 3.
Yes and no. The issue here is that the Rule of 3 itself is kind of a dumb idea; the main reason it exists is to prevent HQ-spam, but what it ends up doing is unfairly punishing people whose vehicles don't come in squadrons (why are 12 Leman Russes all right but 4 Onagers not?).
honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/08/18 02:40:12
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So that's basically where they got the entry for Vet Intercessors being their own thing?
Bloat for the Bloat God! Rules for the Rule Throne!
While I'm certainly not defending adding to loyalists already massively bloated elites choices with veteran intercessors, I find the idea of giving them another troops choice with heavy intercessors more annoying. What would that give them, six troops choices? Most armies only have two, some only one. If loyalists need that many troops options then gw should level the playing field a little by making Chosen a troops choice for csm.
Yeah seriously. Space marines had ENOUGH units. Just update rules or make new models. Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
Gw seems intent on having a different data sheet for every possible loyalist loadout. Why couldn't they just have given intercessors the option to trade their bolters for chainswords like csm instead of creating a different troops choice for assault intercessors? If you don't like this I have some bad news for you: the leaked contents page for the new Loyalist Scum codex features two data sheets for Predators, three for the new floating "not a Predator", and three for the new primaris land speeder. Seems they're doubling down on this approach.
because intercessors don't have chainswords in the box.
Does the box include thunder hammers now? Because last I checked it didn't, and that doesn't seem to stop them being stuck on half of the sergeants see.
BrianDavion wrote: ...rule of 3 mind you is why this data sheet approuch is proably for the best. any army that was flexable and used the same unit for multiple roles could be really screwed over by the rule of 3.
Yes and no. The issue here is that the Rule of 3 itself is kind of a dumb idea; the main reason it exists is to prevent HQ-spam, but what it ends up doing is unfairly punishing people whose vehicles don't come in squadrons (why are 12 Leman Russes all right but 4 Onagers not?).
honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
For specific units? Seems to favor an army with lots of redundant data sheets.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 03:02:42
2020/08/18 02:45:14
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
BrianDavion wrote: ...rule of 3 mind you is why this data sheet approuch is proably for the best. any army that was flexable and used the same unit for multiple roles could be really screwed over by the rule of 3.
Yes and no. The issue here is that the Rule of 3 itself is kind of a dumb idea; the main reason it exists is to prevent HQ-spam, but what it ends up doing is unfairly punishing people whose vehicles don't come in squadrons (why are 12 Leman Russes all right but 4 Onagers not?).
honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
What about the leaks makes you think that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 02:47:40
BrianDavion wrote: ...rule of 3 mind you is why this data sheet approuch is proably for the best. any army that was flexable and used the same unit for multiple roles could be really screwed over by the rule of 3.
Yes and no. The issue here is that the Rule of 3 itself is kind of a dumb idea; the main reason it exists is to prevent HQ-spam, but what it ends up doing is unfairly punishing people whose vehicles don't come in squadrons (why are 12 Leman Russes all right but 4 Onagers not?).
honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
It's in the core book.
213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL (she/her)
2020/08/18 03:02:12
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
argonak wrote: Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
I would have to double check, but I am pretty sure Aggressors are Elites choices and Eradicators are Heavy Support. Not that I am against consolidating data sheets, just that his example might not be as sound as you think it is.
2020/08/18 03:19:08
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
BrianDavion wrote: honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
In order to retire it they could have just never mentioned it again, as it was never actually a rule. Thing is, they went and made it a rule in 9th, which tends to say the opposite of what you're thinking.
argonak wrote: Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
I would have to double check, but I am pretty sure Aggressors are Elites choices and Eradicators are Heavy Support. Not that I am against consolidating data sheets, just that his example might not be as sound as you think it is.
Well yeah, that's a good point. Been so long since I got to play I forgot about Aggressors. :(
Still seems like pointless bloat. I've never been a huge fan of this implementation of the FOC anyway.
In the end I guess it won't matter much anymore if it all goes digital.
2020/08/18 04:04:22
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
argonak wrote: Example, why are eradicators their own unit, instead of just a type of aggressor? So much bloat.
I would have to double check, but I am pretty sure Aggressors are Elites choices and Eradicators are Heavy Support. Not that I am against consolidating data sheets, just that his example might not be as sound as you think it is.
Could just stick them in the Elite section like a consolidated Centurion profile would be heavy support.
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.
2020/08/18 05:04:23
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
BrianDavion wrote: honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
In order to retire it they could have just never mentioned it again, as it was never actually a rule. Thing is, they went and made it a rule in 9th, which tends to say the opposite of what you're thinking.
And the detachment system makes abuse a little more difficult. 6 Nu-Preds is going to cost you close to a whole army on top of two detachments.
2020/08/18 05:17:08
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
BrianDavion wrote: honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
In order to retire it they could have just never mentioned it again, as it was never actually a rule. Thing is, they went and made it a rule in 9th, which tends to say the opposite of what you're thinking.
And the detachment system makes abuse a little more difficult. 6 Nu-Preds is going to cost you close to a whole army on top of two detachments.
depends, if for example they give a predator annialator and a preadator destructor a differant datasheet you can then take 6 predators in a single detachment no problem.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/08/18 05:17:33
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
BrianDavion wrote: honestly I agree. and the marines codex leaks, IMHO suggest GW is prepping to retire the rule of 3
In order to retire it they could have just never mentioned it again, as it was never actually a rule. Thing is, they went and made it a rule in 9th, which tends to say the opposite of what you're thinking.
And the detachment system makes abuse a little more difficult. 6 Nu-Preds is going to cost you close to a whole army on top of two detachments.
I don't think it has anything to do with Rule of 3. It's just how gw is doing data sheets now. I go back to intercessors/assault intercessors, what's the point? They're troops, you can take as many as you have points to spend.
2020/08/18 05:22:48
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
depends, if for example they give a predator annialator and a preadator destructor a differant datasheet you can then take 6 predators in a single detachment no problem.
I doubt they get the 3 for 1 treatment unless I missed something?
I don't think it has anything to do with Rule of 3. It's just how gw is doing data sheets now. I go back to intercessors/assault intercessors, what's the point? They're troops, you can take as many as you have points to spend.
Yea I think it just boils down to what's in the box. Perhaps in the future we'll have Intercessors who can freely swap into Assault or Heavy and replace the First Born loadouts..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 05:24:11
2020/08/18 05:41:28
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
depends, if for example they give a predator annialator and a preadator destructor a differant datasheet you can then take 6 predators in a single detachment no problem.
I doubt they get the 3 for 1 treatment unless I missed something?
.
rumor has it the predator is getting 2 datasheets in the next codex. one presumably for the destructor pattern (with the autocanon) and presumably the other with the annialator pattern (the twin las canon)
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/08/18 05:55:51
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
You still only have three heavy support slots per battalion, so bringing six will cost you CP.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2020/08/18 05:58:13
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
Jidmah wrote: You still only have three heavy support slots per battalion, so bringing six will cost you CP.
true I was thinking of a brigade, proably cause I've been busy working on a sisters list the past day. yeah a brigade for marines isn't likely doable, certainly not if you want a good list
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/09/12 15:57:31
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
1) I'm going to assume that Primaris get an additional would, taking them to 3, thereby making them still superior to the old marines
They're not.[/endquote]
Bzzt. Wrong. And so it begins:
From the GW preview today, re: their new SM Codex:
"Heavy Intercessors! And they’re called that for a reason – like their Captain, these bad-boys aren’t just heavily armed, they’re heavily armoured too, thanks to their Gravis armour. A Toughness 5 Troops unit with 3 Wounds apiece, anyone?"
And so it begins...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/12 15:58:36
"There is rational thought here. It's just swimming through a sea of stupid and is often concealed from view by the waves of irrational conclusions." - Railguns
2020/09/12 15:59:31
Subject: How do you feel about ALL Marines getting bumped to 2 wounds base?
60PL 
12PL 
Legio Suturvora 2000 points (painted)
Daemonhunters 1000 points (painted)
Flesh Tearers 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '02 52nd; Balt GT '05 16th
Kabal of the Tortured Soul 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '08 85th; Mechanicon '09 12th
Greenwing 1000 points (painted) - Adepticon Team Tourny 2013